Slashdot Mirror
The Rise of Corporate Global Power
tuxpenguin writes: "While playing around with GNutella the other day, I came across this PDF document (HTML Here). It gives figures on the Top 200 businesses in terms of net/gross profits and employees. It also compares this information to the GDP of different countries, campaign contributions, government lobbying etc. I found it to be an interesting read. I also found it interesting, that being a rather contriversial document for big businesses, I came accross it first on a p2p network. Something most major corporations would be thrilled to see disbanded."
I find it somewhat amusing how the US government's pro-capitalism/anti-communism campaigns (propaganda?) is starting to rear its ugly head in that people trust large corporations more than their own government.
The American right doesn't like intellectuals because they are harder to lie to, and harder to brainwash. How else could the right convince their electorate that universal health care, 5 weeks vacations, gun control, and other such things that Europeans take for granted, are somehow bad for them.
- Anonycous Moward
The only solution to corrupt politicians is for us -- that means you and I -- to tell our politicians that we don't want them to interfere in the marketplace.
Why should the politician listen to you and I, when they can use the money they get from the businesses to buy a political ad that will result in a hundred votes for them, compared to our two votes against?
Sure it is. It's harder to wage war on a corporation. Also, governments exist to give something to citizens (even if only controlledness!). Corporations only exist to take. Period. You can't maintain an economy if some of the players are seizing the resources and squirrelling them away, hoarding the money. It's got to be in circulation. Corporations get in the way of that- the money flow is strictly one-way.
Sorry, but there is NO justification for corporations on those grounds. If I get a mob together to storm Redmond, this does not legally make us a composite entity with legal rights and exempt from individual responsibility. _Why_ does Redmond deserve legal rights and exemption from personal responsibility to storm _us_ and deprive me of my free market choices?
Once corporations become so much more powerful than governments that they have no such restrictions, they will war on each other in all the ways of governments. Rather than nVidia warring on 3dfx in the courts, it will simply hire mercs and shoot the 3dfx engineers. Rather than Microsoft releasing lots of PR nonsense to fight open source, it will simply have RMS shot. There's loads of historical precedent. To think otherwise is hopelessly naive and requires wilful refusal to face known historical fact. The only difference is in magnitude. The corporate rulers of the future you suggest will be _worse_ than the atrocities of the Industrial Age. For one, they'll be infinitely more able to spy on you, and will have total access to all your resources, which will be electronic and stored on servers that they own.
No no no, you're not getting the spirit of the thing! Africa _should_ be killed, and the bodies sold to the five largest american companies to make soap with, which can then be sold in Wal-Mart! You're not properly appreciating the Darwinism of it all, Mike. What's your body fat content? Maybe you'd be more profitable to the economy as soap ;)
Easy. It happened when news article after news article illustrated the practical result of modern corporate capitalism and how it interferes with a choice-rich, thriving market.
The fact that many/most Slashdot readers are users of Linux, which is targeted for destruction by Microsoft (a trend-setting corporation that is much imitated), surely helped. Those slashdot readers have had many chances to consider the ways in which corporations can attack and damage the social infrastructure to benefit only themselves.
Finally, many Slashdot readers are young, traditionally a time for liberal and radical views and a desire for egalatarianism- when you're young you are shall we say LESS in favor of having a few old white haired geezers running the world. When you're old, mysteriously it starts to seem more suitable for those like you to rule ;)
To top all this off, many Slashdot readers are intelligent and capable of pursuing logical thought. Forced to practice this thinking just to maintain their computer systems (largely self-maintained), they tend to apply it to all problems they see. When faced with problems of power dynamics in the world, they are capable of putting together the implications of laissez-fair free-market capitalism, the ability of third world countries to produce sweatshops and out-produce more civilised countries (civil liberties are a LOCAL ordinance), and the requirements of fiduciary duty on intellectual systems defined entirely by rules and regulations, and they come out with an answer that stuns them: government is on the way out, corporate totalitarianism is on the way in. Decentralised Stalin. Global electronic 'Kristallnacht'.
THAT is why so many Slashdotters have seemingly gone Communist. Of course, you should also remember that many have gone Socialist, or Social Anarchist, and that some have decided to side with where the power's going to be, and have gone Anarcho-Capitalist or Randite. (Not to be confused with social libertarian!)
Got it? And which side are _you_ on? >:)
I don't know how to better explain this- it's so basic that if you won't accept it, there's no communication. Crime pays. Theft works. If you knock someone down and take their money, you have their money and they don't. The way to make lots of money is to take it from people. Producing something people want is a really inefficient way of doing that, and will ALWAYS lose to any competitor with more willingness to use the cosh.
Oh, you cite law? There is no law. It was part of governments and justice and all that stuff. It's not what it used to be.
Our needs as a culture, as a _global_ and wildly diverse species, depend on our keeping the diversity to be able to adapt to whatever the upcoming millenia will throw at us. That means we don't have the option to just cull the herd until only the best survival strategies for THIS year (or decade, or century) are left alive. We've got to do what we can for the whole tribe because to narrow and evolve ourselves into one little niche is species suicide. And doing this can also be described as 'making the world a better place', and often is.
And why exactly are you impressed by UINs? Because they identify people who were quick to take notice of something that became very important? If that is so, you might want to look again at what Ian is saying- and the reasons I'm backing him up here.
Because he is taking notice of something that IS becoming increasingly important. So am I. Are you going to be quick to understand this too- or really, really slow?
If the statement is true, where is your difference now?
The sabertooth tiger could clobber _any_ human, one on one. What the sabretooth tiger could _not_ do was be omnivorous, develop societies to protect the weaker members of the species so they could sit around inventing things like spears and guns and anarchocapitalism.
Note how there aren't any sabretooth tigers around anymore. Now, why would you want to emulate their markedly inferior capacity for tribal defense and protection? Human civilisation is _based_ on the tribe, a system of trading status for obligation. The head of the tribe takes on the responsibility of protecting the weakest members. This is a winning evolutionary strategy.
Any political system that depends on the winner getting to eat up the losers may be a very simple system, and it may look great to winners and would-be winners (whee, no obligation! I can spell 'Darwin'!) but it's a recipe for overspecialisation and extinction. Don't go there. Study Desmond Morris, not just Darwin. Think tribes, not individuals.
If a corporation can see to it that I never work in this town again (because it owns the town and controls all commerce), then it counts as The State. If a corporation can seize the tollbooths of the information superhighway and take the ability to communicate globally _away_ from me because I won't pay tribute, I can still choose to not pay tribute, but I'll be awful lonely- and again, that counts as The State.
I have to agree with Deskpoet that Slashdot tends to veer wildly to the right. It's just _radical_ right, which is why it's not always seen as such. Wishing to turn over the reins of world power to corporations and cartels with blind faith in some sort of magical market forces based on people being smart, well-informed, and loaded with foresight and the ability to put off instant gratification for longterm goals... is so wildly Right-wing that it's almost a self-parody. Normal people do not cultivate this sort of faith in economic theories.
- "The average life expectancy in 1900 was 47 years. Today it is 77, and rising." This is simply the advance of medical technology and old-age care, owing nothing to your political system. And average life expectancy of what- inner-city blacks? Or wealthy white upper-class senior citizens?
- "The infant-mortality rate has dropped from 1 in 10 to 1 in 150." Again, technology. And clearly you're not measuring it in Santiago, Chile, where laissez-faire freemarket capitalism led to pollution levels that made hospitals keep tons of oxygen masks ready, to put on asphixiating babies- dozens brought in each day, at the point of death from breathing air. I don't think you're measuring _those_ infants. Perhaps you're measuring the infant mortality of Beverly Hills.
- ""Poor" Americans today have routine access to a quality of housing, food, health care, consumer products, entertainment, communications and transportation that even the Vanderbilts, Carnegies and Rockefellers could only dream of." Yeah, poor americans can drop everything and fly to Paris to sip wine. What the _hell_ are you thinking? Hung up on the fact that Andrew Carnegie couldn't have a Palm Pilot? This is an _obscene_ suggestion.
- "A farmer a century ago could produce only one-hundredth of what his counterpart is capable of growing and harvesting today." The farmer a century ago _owned_ his farm and supported himself by it. His counterpart is an employee, probably doesn't own the land he works, or his equipment- if he is not an outright employee, then the bank owns the stuff and he's paying it off. Hell, man, the modern farmer doesn't own the SEED he plants. He has no capacity for subsistence at all. I'm sorry, this is a _major_ gaffe on your part. It's as bad as the 'Vanderbilt' nonsense.
- "In the 19th century, almost all teenagers toiled in factories or fields. Now, 9 in 10 attend high school."
...where they are taught to drink Pepsi(tm), work at Wal-Mart, and on the whole have less collective bargaining power than the factory workers had- which is why they are so easily discarded when the teenagers of _Korea_ prove to be able to do the same work, at a quarter the cost. Oh, and they stand a better chance of being shot, blown up, spied on, beat up or having bad things put on their permanent record than the factory workers had.
- "Today's Americans have three times more leisure time than their great-grandparents did." And barely comprehend what the concept 'leisure' even means anymore because they're running so hard on the treadmill. I'm sorry, this sounds like someone made it up whole cloth.
- "The price of food relative to wages has plummeted: In the early part of this century the average American had to work two hours to earn enough to purchase a chicken, compared with 20 minutes today." In the early part of this century, a fair number of average Americans _raised_ fscking chickens! You're counting the self-sufficient ones as consumers! You're out of your mind if you think that makes sense. The consumer class was a product of the 50s and kicked off the horrible dependence modern Americans are stuck with. If nobody sold food, those early Americans would be _fine_. If nobody sold food, your modern consumer would _starve_. And you are arguing that the very dependency that's made what was once a luxury item (a store-bought chicken) a staple (at a corresponding price drop) shows that the modern consumer is wealthier! That's obscene.
Cato-quoting fantasizer... >:(Human society outgrew that LONG ago.
Read some Desmond Morris with particular attention to the way in which human society grew from 'tribe' status, in which humans knew the vast majority of other humans they interacted with, to 'super-tribe' status, in which it's more often the case that you deal with people totally unknown to you.
This is hardly novel information- you're just not applying it, or choosing not to see it.
In the modern world (already!) and in the world of the future, most of your interactions are with strangers, and this is where your default assumptions break down, and why the original poster's theories do not hold in the real world.
They are based on a 'village' model in which people customarily have familiarity with, and free information about, those with which they do business.
That doesn't happen anymore- indeed, we have some parts of UCITA that would prohibit true information even being exchanged. Even if UCITA is struck down, the basic social reality is that the vast majority of people do business with strangers. Do you KNOW the waitress to whom you hand your credit card? The programmer who codes the back-end of your favorite website?
Please lose the naivete. The world is bigger than you know- and that's a reality that won't go away no matter how much you pretend you can be aware of everyone you interact with. It's basic sociology as applied to super-populations such as human beings.
If you really believe what you say- move to a small town NOW.
I did! *G*
Uhm.....
The 44 corps mentioned as not paying the full 35% taxes means that they didn't pay 35% of taxes on *profits.* Since that is all a corporation can be taxed on, the assumption they made a profit is part of the statement.
Further on, they state that these 44 were the only ones of the top 200 that were included in the report from which this information was gleaned. There's nothing to go on for the 38 other companies.
Neither Microsoft nor Cisco paid taxes last year-- and don't tell me they didn't make a profit. Think of all the taxes *you* paid last year. Then tell me it doesn't piss you off that corporations making approximately 33 million times as much as you don't pay taxes.
If these corporations paid their taxes, then we wouldn't be choosing between space exploration and the undereducation of our children. W's tax cut might start to make sense (except it would still favor the rich).
Fuck that. We're getting screwed, and you have your head in the sand. Your freedoms are being trampled, and you are apoligising to the people wiping their feet on your ass.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I disagree with fundamentalists on a lot of things, but I do respect them for doing what they really think is right. I just wish they would pay more attention to Jesus than Paul... but that's not the issue here. This isn't right vs. left. It's moral vs. amoral. I'm not willing to leave the world in the hands of anything as abstract as the free market or capitalism. I trust people, not institutions.
When I think Right Wing, there's really two things -- the social conservatives and the economically, well, political right. For no compelling reason, these two groups have aligned themselves with each other.
The media most certainly is not socially conservative. It is indeed quite liberal. It is very economically right wing and pro-establishment. Sure, there's all sorts of petty crap they bring up... stupid scandals and what-not. The real, and often sinister, workings of the government, corporations, and in general the powers that be, are not covered by the media.
My God -- Echelon should be the news story of the year. The media has finally started mentioning it, but somehow they manage to make a global, ubiquitous spy network into a minor sound bite to be forgotten.
The deliberate lying leading up to the bombing of Kosovo should have been reported on -- maybe the media can get off on just being ignorant leading up to the bombing (even though the lies were obvious), but everything has come out. The US lead UN fact-finding mission lied, all the atrocities happened after the bombing started -- that is a moral travesty, but the media just forgets it ever happened.
The media likes to talk about some of these big legal suits -- like the ten million dollar cup of McDonald's coffee. But they never mention that the plaintiffs never see that much money because judges consistently reduce those winnings.
And where were the muck-rakers in the election? Bush was a draft dodger, why didn't anyone mention that? Because the people didn't care? Unlikely. I'm not claiming the media is Republican, I don't like Al Gore, but Bush is the ultimate figurehead of corporatism and elitism, and the media let him get away with murder.
The political spectrum is far wider and richer than the petty conflicts the media covers.
And while shareholders could vote for something that does not imply greatest profit, it is nearly absurd to think that the institutional investor would do such a thing, and they account for significant amount of stock ownership.
There is almost no interesting conservative anti-establishment material to report on. Perhaps militia groups had some -- but they would agree with this report, and they actually share a lot of ideals and beliefs with leftists.
And even if we didn't limit ourself to anti-establishment material, there is little of interest from the conservative perspective at all. That's the pathetic thing to it... I mean, who's a better read, Sartre or Rand? Dostoevsky or... damn... I ran out of conservative authors after Rand. I suppose fundamentalists and Neo-Nazis have, well, at least novel things to say, but I doubt those are the conservatives you were thinking of. Did you want more articles on how we really need mroe study on this whole "Global Warming" thing? Articles that talk about how dumb those protesters are? That's about sums up the argument against protesters these days -- not, mind you, any material backing up the general proposition that they are a bunch of naive idiots, that would be pandering to them. At least that's how it seems, reading the Conservative Response.
Do you have new statistics to show everything is hunky-dory and we should leave things as they are? Exciting. Or an editorial on how the government is stealing our money? How insightful. I haven't heard that idea anywhere. Maybe how technology is helping catch Bad Guys? I love the term "bad guys"... certainly the sign of a media that wants to keep us thinking deeply on the issues.
I mean, if you want to hear conservative points of view intermingled with fluff, go watch TV news. Read CNN. Whatever. Don't ask to bring that drivel here. If you have a good source of insightful conservative news and opinion stories, post it. I'll give it a gander, and maybe some people more sympathetic to that perspective will read it instead of /.
The problem with the view that just making lots of money is okay, is that it isn't okay. We each have a duty to help make the world a better place. Fuck the libertarians, being selfish is not okay.
Again, if you have some material to show me wrong, post it. Right here, right now, you don't need an editor to approve it. I still probably won't agree with you, but I promise you I'll read it, and if nothing else at least I'll see where you are coming from.
God, I hope not. But if not, when did you learn that being selfish was okay? Capitalist rhetoric has made people forget the most basic moral lessons. Well, not really -- most people still act decently in their private lives. But somehow people change the standard when they move into public life.
I'm an atheist, but this is the sort of thing that makes me want to preach religion. In a society where the strongest voices speak for materialism and selfishness, religion seems to be the one place where basic moral standards are applied to the public sphere.
Making things people want is fine. Hell, it's good. But being selfish is not good.
You have a moral imperative to be thoughtful and conscious of the effects of your actions. You have a moral imperative to help others and make your world a better place. I don't say this because I have a direct line from God telling me this -- I say it because this is how people have lived their lives and continue to live their lives, everywhere. You will live up to your moral imperative if you let yourself, and if the world doesn't hold you down.
(and making you unaware of the effect of your actions holds you down)
So I'll say it once again: selfishness is not okay.
But what I really don't like is when people are divorced from the results of their actions. Corporations do that this people. The US foreign policy reflects this abstraction. Militaries cultivate such automation every way possible. Those are the enemies of freedom.
I think TRW changed their name to Experian now.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Corporations can't run your life. Only the government can do that. Corporations have no legal power to tell you what to do.
They can't order you to do anything, but they can exert great influence on the government and use their own resources to curtail your options pretty severely if they feel it's in their interests. You're deluding yourself if you think that larger and larger corporations can't exert significant control over what you can or cannot do.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Now, who's screwing you out of money? If it's a company, then don't buy its products. Nobody's forcing you to fork over your cash for the latest consumer goodies.
Really? So if a corporation is screwing me by throwing huge amounts of pollution into the air I breathe, or say building huge dangerous cars that if they crash into me on the road will kill me, I can stop being screwed if I just don't buy it's products? What if I'm already not, and never have?
You can tell me I should convince others not to also. But what if I can't, or what if those others can't reasonably stop using the company's products? Then should I just accept 10 years off my life due to lung cancer?
BTW, what if the company sells products only to other countries. This may not apply as much in the US, but it does in other countries. If a company enters my country, sends tons of pollution into your air making its products, and then exports those products, how am I supposed to stop this company from doing what its doing?
"Although you don't recognize the idea of Communism as evil, by your own statements you have already condemned any implementation thereof."
Communism has worked in small groups of people. Democracy never worked in anything other than relatively small groups of people before the US, which isn't even really a true Democracy. The fact that the kinds of Communism we've seen so far didn't work doesn't mean none could work.
I also want to mention that according to economists a yellow fin tuna has no worth until it's cut up and ends up in a sushi bar and a tree has no worth unless it's in your fireplace or your mantelpiece. This is plainly wrong and until you start measuring the worth of creatures not by what they provide to you but what they conribute to the ecosystem as a whole your math will always be wrong.
Excellent point. Right now companies use the earth as their personal shitting hole. They take good stuff from it and put bad stuff into it.
Now some people might be able to argue if they payed for the land, they have a right to do what they want with it. I don't in all cases agree, but nevertheless you also have corps who pollute our air and our water. How is that fair? The corp pays for the land to build a smokestack on a small piece of land, and then has the right to pump millions of pounds of pollution into the atmosphere? That would be like saying I have the right to buy a little piece of land and set off a thermonuclear device on it. Oh, that land happens to be in the middle of New York City? Oh well.
The resources of the earth are the collective property of everyone and everything on the earth. You don't shit where you eat, and you don't fuck up the planet you live on. Period.
Less power in government = less power to be bought
Right. It also means that government(i.e. the extension of the people in Democratic countries) now has no power, and corporations have all of it.
Want to stop a corporation from polluting the air you breathe? Sorry, you took away the power of your government to do that. Good work.
"The people we starve and torture have the unsociable tendency to steal and murder. We think it's because their brows overhang." - Ann Druyan
There are MILLIONS of cigarette smokers who don't get lung cancer. Therefore, smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. QED.
dumbass
I'm not saying that government needs to regulate more, but lower-class employees could certainly do better looking out for their wage prospects as a whole. Pity they seem incapable of banding together for anything more than gang fights.
Orwell again.
"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated."
Then you ought to be able to sue its ass. That's certainly not incompatible with capitalism.
But it is incompatible with the abilities of poor/working class people. To sue a large corporation. Yeah, a definite possibility, assuming the poor person has millions of dollars and years of his life to dedicate to the task.
Class-action is a possibility, but not always. Why should I have to find hundreds/thousands of other people to join me just so I can actually stand a chance of winning against a large company which is killing me? Real fair.
And BTW, it would be hard to pinpoint pollution on any one company. What do you suggest then? Enact a class action lawsuit of all the American people against all polluting companies maybe? Guess what, we can. It's called a law. It's the way things happen in Democracies when everyone wants massive entity to stop killing them.
If you and your buddies want to pool your funds, buy a plot of land, your own tools and equipment, and run your own little commune, be my guest. Just don't expect the rest of society to emulate your folly.
Be an ass if you want. I assume you are conceding the point since you don't respond to it. We don't know that practical communism is impossible.
wow, great point. "stop talking...convince others of your position" - hear it all the time
Interesting that the author took the document that was initially available on GNUTella and moved it to the web, which defeats some of the security of having a peer to peer system. This was done, no doubt, for the ease of linkage.
Perhaps it would suit browsers well to have a plugin that queries GNUtella servers based on a URL. gnutella://metallica%20mp3 for instance.
\\\ SLUDGE
My ancestors were white, came to the US in the 1860's from Northern Europe.
They came in a deal with a mining company in Northern Michigan, who paid their passage in return for their availability to work off the debt in the copper mines.
Unfortunately, once they got there, they found out that the copper mines were in a town where everything else was also owned by the mining company. The stores, the housing. Everything. And there were no other towns for hundreds of miles.
They were free, but virtually slaves. The longer they lived there, the deeper they got in debt, because wages did not cover the living expenses, let alone begin to pay back the debt.
Plus, the local law enforcement and judiciary were also "owned" by the mining company.
I've heard all the arguments FOR unrestrained capitalism, and none of them override the fact that people can and will be exploited as slaves, by those in power, as long as those in power can get away with it. In the latter part of the 19th century, and the early part of th 20th, the US began to recognize this problem, and act to prevent it, passing numerous laws restricting business from unfairly exploiting people.
The problem with that is, you're on a slippery slope to communism. But if you do nothing, you're on a slippery slope to slavery.
My ancestors were lucky; they were "rescued" by a rich relative, who had come to America, and got rich as a farmer in Iowa (not actually related, but from the same part of Norway). They eventually paid their debts, bought land of their own, and became wealthy successful farmers themselves. But not everyone is lucky enough to have a rich successful benefactor.
It shows that the system can work to benefit the down and out, even under terrible conditions. The philanthropy of the rich is critical, when there is no societal regulation. But a human should still feel compelled to look at a situation like those copper mines, and be disgusted by it.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
well, that's because in reality, there is only ONE law. The law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest.
This is how society works today. We have our structures of law and order, presumably to benefit society as a whole, but in fact, this structure of law and order serves to benefit mainly those already in power, and to preserve their status. The battlefield has been altered from tooth and claw to money and power. The victor becomes stronger, and the loser becomes homeless, economically destroyed, and as good as physically dead. The threat is neutralized.
But when it comes down to it, all of those laws and regulations can be brushed aside, and when survival becomes a question, the answer is at the business-end of a gun. Step out of line, and it becomes a physical struggle for life-and-death. The whole thing is based on the law of the jungle folks.
Isn't murder illegal? A crime? It's one of the most basic laws of human civilization. Pretty much all human civilizations share a prohibition against wanton killing of other humans.
What if a cop thinks you were going for a gun when you were getting your ID? What if a very rich and powerful person is threatened by you and can afford a discreet hit? What if your nation will not give access to a critical resource to a much more powerful nation. In all cases, the fact that murder is a crime falls by the wayside, and the stronger animal kills the weaker animal.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Slashdot tends to self-select a somewhat left-leaning readership. Ones who tire of constantly liberal bents to the headlines probably leave sooner rather than later - after all, there's PLENTY of places to get news that's been filtered by people with, if not a conservative bent, at least a desire to appeal to a conservative audience. Not like Slashdot's editors are unbiased or anything, but most of us are comfortable with the political slant here. Especially where it pertains to big companies that want to take not just our money, but our rights.
...and replace it with what ? Until these people propose something better instead I think we are going to be better off with what we have now.
Of course we would. Isn't that the simplest definition of a conservative - one who thinks status quo is Latin for "good enough"?
Some of us don't buy it. Myself, I don't care much for socialism as an antidote to corporatism - someone needs to think of a NEW economic model that allows for personal advancement the way capitalism does, without requiring every company to strip the planet dry and burn out all its workers in the process. But the point is, corporatism (a cult, founded on the belief that one can't just make money, one must make ALL the money and one goes to Hell if one leaves a single dollar unmade somewhere) is a danger to the species, psychologically (as we sell more of our souls in exchange for whiter teeth and summer blockbusters), physically (corn syrup and Red 40 are hazardous to our health), and ecologically (no really, despite what certain radio hosts tell you, we really ARE ruining the planet). There is a desire among some people to see corporatism - not necessarily capitalism, mind you - burned down. Perhaps instead of condemning such ideas with the "L" word, you should actually THINK about what people have to gain from suggesting such things.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
Another more useful measure is employment: how many people work for Wal-Mart vs. how many people work for the government of a nation? Again you will find even tiny countries have far bigger government workforces than the largest multinationals.
This is not to defend corporations vs. governments. Both can be really bad. But the measurement being used is as bad as confusing mass with weight. It's just bad science.
I wrote parts of this stuff
Port Arthur in Tasmania hosted a "Model Prison", which was where all the axe-murderers and child rapists ended up. The entire prison was designed so that it was not possible for a prisoner to see another human being. Think solitary confinement for decades on end and you'll start to get an idea of what it would have been like.
It's restored as a tourist attraction now, believe it or not. Details like a chapel set up with screens so that it can be full of people who can't see each other, and cells with walls four feet thick so that sounds from the cells next door can't penetrate; truly bizarre.
-----
-----
I tried an internal modem, but it hurt when I walked.
the profits of the five largest american companies FOR ONE YEAR would feed the starving in africa for decades
Unfortunately, their shareholders probably want to keep the money for their 401K's.
If all the socialist Slashdotter's sold their computers and sent the money to Africa, you could probably feed all the poor in one country for a year. So go ahead, do it!
Of course, conservatives are just another brand of government-conquers-all-except-my-pet-concern-lik
Do you have new statistics to show everything is hunky-dory and we should leave things as they are?
It's Getting Better All the Time: 100 Greatest Trends of the Last 100 Years
If that isn't enough, the percentage of Americans holding shares in those "evil corporations" has skyrocketed to over 43%, a 126% increase in the last 15 years, and has increased for all income levels (workers are becoming capitalists). Our houses are getting larger and larger, despite price per square foot going down. In the 1950's, 50% of Americans did not have indoor plumbing. Now even those in poverty do, along with a refrigerator, VCR, and one or two televisions.
Yes, the Cato Institute is so Republican...that's why they sponsored Beyond Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies, Are Republicans Locked in a Cold-War Mindset?, and Republicans and Democrats Are in It for the Money, the Power, the Prestige.
Cato regularly speaks out against Republican attacks on liberty as well as Democratic ones. The Democrats do tend to be overachievers in this department, but the Republicans sure can do it as well.
Cato is a bit more realistic than, say, the Libertarian Party. It is my impression that the Cato folks assume that there is little chance of an effective third-party in the US, and that working to provide facts to the two existing parties and the public is the best way to move forward.
If that was the case then there would have to be a gradual increase in prices as the supply started getting shorter. That did not happen. The prices all of a sudden spiked up tenfold despite the fact that CA used seven percent less energy this year and then last year.
They spiked for a bunch of reasons. First of all, user rates were capped by the government, so there was no "run up" for ratepayers, and utilities could not pass on higher wholesale electricity prices to ratepayers. And under the market rules, PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E were required to buy all of their power through the CalPX. They could not enter into forward long-term contracts for energy. When spot market wholesale prices increased because of power shortages and increasing generation costs, the utilities had no option but to purchase the high-priced power. Many independent power generators were reluctant to sell power to PG&E, and SCE because of their resulting financial troubles, and the uncertainty of receiving payment for the power sold.
Add on top of this an increase in natural gas prices.
Also, electricity does not have a linear demand curve, people are willing to pay whatever they have to in order to have the lights on, so as demand nears supply, the prices go up quickly. With a cap on rates, there was no "warning" to ratepayers.
The Cato Institute predicted the result of California "deregulation" in 1997!. It was not the creation of a free market in energy, but an attempt to look like doing so while maintaining a regulatory structure that eventually stuck it to the ratepayers.
I'll have to believe you about California using 7% less energy this year than last year, but the pricing of California electricity is about peak demand, not average demand. California's generation capability decreased 2 percent from 1990 through 1999, while retail sales increased by 11 percent. To meet its demand for power, California relies on about 7 to 11 gigawatts of out-of-state generation capability, of which a significant portion is produced by hydroelectric power in the northwestern United States. Reduced hydroelectric power generation caused by unusually low water levels in the northwest resulted in a reduction of imports to northern California. Path 15, the high voltage transmission line connecting southern California to northern California, became congested at times, reducing the flow of surplus electricity capacity in southern California to meet shortages in northern California. So I'll bet that power demand peaks were higher then supply more often this year than last.
More than half the prisoners are due to our insane war on drugs.
Q: Did you vote for a Presidential candidate that was for the insane War on Drugs, or against it?
If you voted for a Presidential candidate that was for the War on Drugs, maybe you are INSANE!
There is not an infinite amount of money in some other dimension where it magically appears on this planet whenever we want it. It comes from turning natural resources into products.
That is true to some extent. There are two caveats. First, every exchange in a free market is an increase in wealth to both the buyer and the seller. This is a basic rule of economics, buyers pay less than they value an item at, and sellers ask for more than they value an item at. So we could all become billionaires...
But more on your point, humanity increases the availability of natural resources through the use of human intelligence. Your comment about "hitting a brick wall" will not happen as long as humans are free to come up with new ideas to solve problems, and there is an existing free market to properly value resources.
I highly suggest a reading of Julian Simone's work The Ultimate Resource which discusses how natural resource "shortages" have always been predicted, yet never actually happen because increasing value of scarce resources motivate people to think of new ways of obtaining those resources.
Of course, there are market externalities, such as global atmospheric resources, that cannot be represented in our existing law as private resources. So this doesn't mean that all environmental laws are bad. But we should be very careful that the costs of an environmental law is not larger than the benefit (e.g., millions dead each year because of malaria due to DDT ban, etc.)
Oh cry me a fucking river. I doubt YOU have ever wanted in your life because it was all given to you. I knew you guys in college always talking about how hard it was in the third world while living off daddy's millions, at the same time I was working and paying my own fucking way. Maybe it is guilt that makes you feel this way, but in the end you are a true elitist snob. You think you know what is better for everyone. If you want to change the world, work hard and do it, but do so without demanding or forcing anything from me, you can ask nicely. Remember if you give a man a fish.....
I have to give big props to all of the Objectivists that have put this fool in his place. Notice the only one that agreed was making $54/hour, fuck that $100K a year. He should thank his lucky stars he gets paid as much as he does. I guess he forgot that he is a free man, and can walk out anytime he wants, some people need to be a victim. Slaves never had such choices, and it belittles their plight to compare $54/hour to a slave.
Amen to that brother! I wish more people understood this truism.
Revenues don't mean squat if you aren't making a profit. I think a telling figure in THEIR OWN REPORT that emphasizes this mistake is that their "Top 200" companies account for only .78% (yes, not even one percent) of the total profits of the world's companies.
Leave it to leftists to look at the wrong metrics. Two of the companies to "fear" the most (if your mental condition lends itself to that sort of thing) didn't even make the list.
shane
I'm sure we can both agree that complaining to slashdot is nothing more than preaching to the choir.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
Why does the typical slashdot poster always whine about being a victim of corporate America?
First you complain about how evil big corporations are using your Dell(tm) computer as you sip away on your Mountain Dew(tm), while wearing your Abercrombie and Fitch(tm) t-shirt and Nike(tm) sneakers.
Then you climb into your General Motors(tm) Aztek(tm) to grab a Big Mac(tm) from the nearest McDonalds(tm).
Instead of endlessly complaining about corporate greed, why don't you take a stand? Support the little guy. Speak out against advertising and abuse by corporate America. Turn around the terrible trend of consumerism, and convince others to help. Corporations, just like the government, get their power from you, me, and everyone else. And if enough people get fed up with the abuse, the support for those companies will dry up.
This post is mostly just an idealistic rant. But instead of whining about how evil big corporations are, why don't you try doing something to make a difference? You aren't completely powerless, you know.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
Here's something that should really scare the entertainment industry: I haven't seen a movie in years because I haven't heard of even one movie that I thought was interesting enough to spend my time watching. Forget losing profit to digital distribution; how about losing profit to people who don't want to watch at all?
And expect the companies, guided by the hidden hand, to simply come up with nice environmental, safety, fair conduct and labor regulation all by their little selves? That has worked where?
...since Bush got elected.
-- need more time?
P4 is false, demonstratable that I knowly consume resources that I do not need to complete my job *cough* posting on slashdot *cough* therefore reducing profits.
:)
;)
Sure, sure - the old "I'm not a sellout, I'm sabotaging the system from within" argument.
And, strictly speaking, a valid argument can have false premisses and a true conclusion. It's okay that you're evil. Really. Embrace it, and think of all the things you're free to do now
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Hey, how about if I extend this a bit:
;)
P1: Seeking to maximize profits at any cost is evil;
P2: Businesses seek to maximize profits at any cost;
C1: Therefore, businesses are evil.
P3: All those who knowingly collaborate in an evil enterprise are themselves evil;
P4: Employees of a business knowingly collaborate in maximizing profits at any cost;
P5: QuantumG is an employee of a business;
C2: Therefore, QuantumG knowingly collaborates in maximizing profits at any cost;
C3: Therefore, QuantumG is evil.
P6: A person who is self-employed is a business;
P7: Businesses are evil;
P8: QuantumG is self-employed;
C4: Therefore, QuantumG is a business;
C5: Therefore, QuantumG is evil.
GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
ZMag may be unsponsored, but I assure you it is not unbiased. :)
Get a clue hon, he pointed out that communism is as bad as capitalism as regards the point he was making.
Personally I found his post highly amusing and it also set off some intriguing brain processes regarding employment in an automated world.
Calling him communist however is rather daft.
~Cederic
These idiots have littered this so called "report" numerous times with comparisons of gross figures to net figures. How much money did these corporations push back into the economy while operating? Then they align these comparisons with fair, logical comparisons, then they make their -- suprise! -- startling conspiricy theory style conclusion that they were shooting for all along!!!
Compare apples to apples -- please - I've had enough comparing them to x86's today.
~GoRK
Someone mod this up. Not a practical solution, but something worth thinking about.
This hits especially close to home now that I finished working a contract where the pimp agency was siphening off $54/hour of my wages. A fellow I worked with (H1B visa) was actually getting a paltry 45K/year salary, no overtime, while the pimp agency billed him to clients at $95/hour for 40-60 hours a week.
At any rate, never before have I felt this kind of exploitation so close to home, but now I see it many places I look in the business world.
It is reasonable to use a number before the costs of labor as your measure of the contribution to GDP made by the particular company, however. The company's output is worth $x more than its inputs. This is divided between employees (wage costs), bondholders (interest costs), the government (taxes) and stockholders (who get what is left). Forgetting about taxes for a moment, how it is divided between these people is immaterial for the economy as a whole. The company has actually manufactured the same thing in all cases, and has made the same contribution to total wealth in all cases.
When I buy a widget, some of the money I spend goes to the shop that sold me the widget, some to the company that transported the widget to the shop, some to the company that made the widget, some to the company that mined the raw materials that the widget was made from etc. In the GDP number, the total cost of the widget is only counted once , and contributions to it come from all the companies in the supply chain.
If we want to compare the economic size of a country with the total economic size of a particular company, we should only use that portion of the sales number that the company is responsible for . If Wal-Mart buys a widget for $10 and sells it for $15, then the net revenue (gross profit) received by Wal-Mart is only $5. The other $10 goes to companies lower in the supply chain.
This study has (for instance) included the sales of Unilever and the sales of Wal-Mart separately. Unilever produces lots of products that Wal-Mart sells, and the production of these products is thus counted twice in this study.
As a concrete example, Wal-Mart is listed in this document as the second largest company in the world. By meaningful measures, this is ridiculous. As a volume retailer, it is in a low margin business. The goods it sells cost it perhaps 80% of the cost it sells them for, and therefore its sales number is 5 times its contribution to the economy. Compare this with Intel, which is in an extremely high margin business (it turns sand, which doesn't cost much, into high value electronic products, which do) and has a sales number which is much closer to its economic contribution. So this report both makes companies appear much more important than they really are relative to countries and makes some types of businesses (retailers and financial institutions, most notably) appear much more important than they are relative to other companies
What is a better way of doing this? Compare gross profit with GDP. (Some would argue that I am still being too generous). I have never seen anyone present a table of this for companies versus countries (it is easy to do for companies based in countries with rigorous accounting standards, at least), but it would paint a completely different picture this one
(Okay, just as a quick test. Using financial information readily available on company websites, we find that Wal-Mart in 1999 had sales of $167bn, cost of goods sold of $130bn and had gross profits of only $37bn. Intel had sales of $29bn, cost of goods sold of $12bn and gross profits of $17bn).
Michael
Yeah. Everybody's going to scream about OSHA and whatnot here in the US, but hear me out.
The safety, fair conduct, and labour laws here in the US don't do a whole lot to improve the safety and wellbeing of employees. The standards set by the government act as minimums, below which no company is allowed to sink. This has the effect of making the demand curve of safety to go vertical at the minimum. No matter what the cost of supplying safety, corps will buy at least the regulated amount of it (or go out of business). However, the remainder of the demand curve is mostly unaffected by the regulations, and remain about what they would be without them.
Now, what percentage of US companies exceed safety regulations? Almost all of them exceed them somewhat. That means that they are buying at a point to the left of the sharp jag in the demand curve. A point that is unaffected by the regulations. Therefore, as the laws are a minimum, most firms are acting as they would without the laws.
Now, there are areas where regulation helps. However, it is demonstratable that this is usully due to problems with negative externalities and property ownership. A quick overview, negative externalities are anything that someone does that is bad for people other than themselves that they don't take into consideration when they do it. So, if your coworker doesn't consider how you feel about it when they smoke in the office, that's a negative externality. If a company doesn't consider the environmental cost of polluting (because it doesn't affect them but rather everyone else) that is an externality.
The best way to deal with these problems is to internalize them. In the smoking example, you could clearly define the property rights. Two ways to do it are: everybody has an intrinsic right to smoke, or everybody has an intrinsic right to clean air. If you suppose the right to smoke, it is possible then for you to pay your coworker not to smoke (or smoke less). Depending on how much you dislike smoking, and how much he likes to smoke, there will be so much smoke in the air. If clean air is worth $50 to you, and smoking is worth $49.99 to your coworker, you can pay them $50, and have your clean air. They're up a penny (because they are forgoing smoking rights that they value at 49.99), and you get your clean air (for exactly as much as it's worth to you).
If you look at it the other way, there is an interesting twist. Now, how much do you really like clean air? Would you let your coworker smoke for $50.01? You can have your clean air, but perhaps you are forgoing $50 to get it. In other words, it is costing you $50 to get clean air, just as much as it costs your coworker $50 to smoke. Interstingly, the $50 figure is the same no matter which way you look at it. This isn't artificial, but would happen in the real world. (Please note since that I treated smoking as an all or nothing thing I had to jigger around with 49.99 and 50.01. If the quantity is a smooth function then that's unneccesary). The amount of smoking is the same either way too.
Now, this system is already being (successfully) used to moniter sulfer dioxide emmisions. Large emmiters of sulfer dioxide need to purchase permits. They can purchase the right to pollute so many tons a year. However, these permits are limited in number, and anyone can buy them (or sell them). As such, the right to emit sulfer dioxide has a strictly defined property right. If you, as a private citizen, think that too much SO2 is in the air, you can buy up licences (at the market price) and retire them. If an already low-emmiting company had a fairly cheap way to cut their emmissions, earlier they had no incentive to. Now, if they cut their emissions, they can sell their now unneeded licences. If a company has a high-emmiting plant, that would be terribly expensive to clean up, rather than shut it down, they can buy more licences. And when the EPA decides that there is too much SO2 around, they can retire some licences, and the market will have to adjust. BUT, they will adjust in the most efficient (moneywise) way. Yes, it is the invisible hand of the market choosing who pollutes. And it costs so much less that way. All that was needed was to define the property rights to SO2 emmision.
Alright, so that isn't exactly laisse-faire. But it isn't a regulation saying "you can only pollute so much." It is mearly refining existing property rights (or creating new ones) to eliminate a negative externality. Defending property rights isn't really regulation, but one of the essential purposes of government.
On a personal note, I see that SO2 scheme as one of the most effective environmention actions possible. However, as it is distasteful to some environmentalists that a company may actually have the right to pollute, similar programs for other pollutants may never happen. It's too bad too, since they would likely be very effective at minimal cost.
Hmm... I seem to have wandered a bit. Oh well.
You make seem like the economy is some fantasy where there is an infinate amount of money and everybody can become billionaires. This is not true. Nothing in this universe exists in an infinate amount. Nothing.
I don't see why not. The universe itself looks to be fairly infinite. With self-replicating artificially-intelligent machines doing all the work, and asteroid mining and solar power providing all the resources, I think everybody actually could become billionaires.
This obviously can't be done now, but it will come.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Two things:
1) I know you can't read your mind, but I meant "fairly infinite" to be either infinite or just really big. If you divide even the resources of a small section of our solar system among the current population, we'd all be billionaires easily. Population growth offset by resources in other areas.
2) You assume the universe is closed. This is a possibilite, but nobody really knows for sure yet. Latest evidence is for an open universe, but it's still inconclusive. I'm not confusing unbounded with infinite.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Don't worry about jumping the gun. You were far better with it than the majority of people on slashdot.
Anyway, I actually don't know for sure what an open or closed universe would really look like. I think there may possibly be open universes which are truly infinite in extent, and given enough time you could keep going and never stop hitting new stuff. I recall reading something about a modernish steady-state theory where new hydrogen atoms get created due to the expansion to offset how everything gets pulled farther apart, thus eventually creating new galaxies and whatever, but I don't know if it was just a crackpot theory or actually serious.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Third: Listen, I do not want everyone to have equal things. You know why, BECAUSE I WORK MY BUTT OFF! It pisses me off when individuals think that we should all have the same thing and we would be free from want and desire. Guess what buddy, want and desire drive innovation, change, invention, discovery, mass production, commidization, so you can go down to Signature Kroger and buy your imported Tofu!
Although I'm adding this comment, what I'm gonna say isn't meant to contradict your post. I believe your position is very valid. I too would rather be the architect than the blick layer, the programmer than the vdu assembly line worker. I see people collect the garbage, and I think, "I'm so glad that's not me down there". Not just because I don't want to break my body, but also because informational work is just more interesting. It doesn't smell. And it uses a higher faculty -- the intelect.
So I don't want to romanticise "the ancient ways". There's a programme on about a bunch of people who try living in iron age conditions. They are mostly "ecowarrior" types, but after spending most of their days just lugging buckets of water around, they're losing enthusiasm for "feeling the spirits of the place".
Ok, so what I'm getting at is this: innovation, change, invention, discovery etc. don't in themselves make people happy. I mean, I'm happy when I buy something I want, or need, but it's a sort of momentary happyness, not a deep happyness, not joy. What I mean is, people never seem ready to die, like. It's like, "no wait, I'm not ready yet -- I haven't made it yet / I didn't get what I wanted". If I saw that I was about to get hit by a truck, I imagine I would feel that my life was not complete -- not just a self preservation thing -- but a 'I've missed out' sense. But not on steak dinners. Or on books. Or on television. I mean, I'm not too bothered about that truck causing me to miss out on next week's episode. And I probably wouldn't feel sorry that I can't go to my job anymore. So it's something else.
This "getting complete" is a sort of Zen thing. And just like the intellect is something that we humans have that dumb animals don't, the ability to be in a state of total completion, deeply fulfilled, not in a drugged state, but in a more-awake than awake state, is also something we humans appear to have as a potential, that animals don't. Now I'm not talking about "hippy love and peace man". I'm saying that there are individuals who have practiced certain methods and exercises, and at some point developed the capacity for trans-intellectual insights. Not pre-intellect, not pre-rational, but trans-rational. And part of that is a sort of cessation of desire.
In that "ultimate" sence, desire is the cause of suffering. But that doesn't mean we in the meantime just "give up wanting", because then we're just trying to want to not want, which is a want, and so still suffering. It's not so easy. Which is why it takes years of practice using the established and tested methods. So in the meantime we need ways of satisfying our wants that don't clash too much, while educating people to start practicing for deeper, higher fulfilment of their wants. Ie. reach the end of wanting. So maybe the trouble with big business isn't so much that people are doing big business (after all, before the ecowarriors can preach about "think globally", you have to actually discover the damn globe in the first place, which historically took money, power, science etc.) -- it's rather that while doing business and science and steak dinners, we're not aware of the additional activity of developing the soul. Not as some airy fairy belief, but as a direct experience. The trouble is not that people are making money, but that people think money will make them happy. Money makes material comfort and survival, and is absolutely necessary. It just doesn't get you the ultimate goodies, the transcendent Self that is truly free.
Science is about performing an experiment, getting a result, and checking with others who've also performed the experiment. That's what Zen Buddhists do -- they do the exercise, see what they find, and check with others, "did you also see what I saw?"
I imagine that some enlightened alien culture would still do science, not because they were trying to expand their sence of power or importance, or hyper-nuke other aliens, but just because they love to do science. And they'd probably just be a lot more efficient at it. Because they would just do science, and not waste time in ego fulfilment projects.
Well, this post is too long -- I'm not dumping a lecture on you, although it probably sounds like it -- I dunno how to keep this short. But hey, how many Zen Buddhists does it take to change a lightbulb?
None, because there is no lightbulb. -- I can't decide whether that's at all funny or not...
However, I don't understand when Slashdot went communist. I've only been a user for about two years, but this has really gotten weird over the past 6-12 months. Corporations aren't evil.
Maybe it's not so much "communist" as "green/postmodern". From what I've read, the latter loves finding "victims" everywhere. Greens are anti-heirarchy ("everyone's view is equally valid") and anti-competitive ("we should be sensitive and co-operative and listen to each other"). So maybe megacorps, born of "modernist mass production", become a target for hatred. Throw in a few oil spills, and they become seen as evil incarnate.
The problem with this "sound bite"/article is that it does not give the whole picture. It makes very little linkage to the gobal view of the problems that has been realized. From Seattle to D.C. the U.S. protests of globalization (the process to which the article is refering to) have mutted in the press or not given adequate time (slashdot included). From the rise of neo-nazis in Germany, the expanding prison population in the U.S., xenophobia in South Africa, violence against immigrants in Australia, decent in Peru, unstability in Indonesia, the displacement of Puerto Ricans the ugly hand of globalization is at work in our world. I think to be fair slashdot should do a short article which would serve as a "teach in" as to what people on have objections to this process are talking about - spew out stats and antidotes does not cut it - careful consideration needs to be given to this process which affects us all - it is the responsible thing to do.
"advanced form" is euphemism for "liberal." Limited liability is the liberal form of capitalism. How .. uh, compassionate .. that if someone makes a bad business decision, the government will bail them out by nullifying their debts.
Thus, lending money to corporations has a little extra risk, so all interests rates go up, but oh no, we can't have that because it's liberal government's job to insure economic growth. So government steps in again and federal reserve artificially lowers interest rates to below what the market thinks they should be. Then inflation goes up and everyone (that's you and me) pays for it. Corporatism is just a small step from socialism.
It's all set up and ready to go: capitalism. Wiping away corporatism wouldn't harm capitalism the slightest bit.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You're essentially correct, but the sad fact is that businesses prefer stealing money instead of making money, because it is easier. As corporations gain more power, they are able to change the rules (hire lobbyists to pass laws like DMCA, bribe attourney generals into not prosecuting them for fraud, etc) so that stealing becomes easier and then they don't have to deal with the expense and effort of creating wealth. And once you get into that territory, it really is zero-sum. Eliminating corporate influence is the only way to break your dreaded Archimedes Idea of Wealth.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Angels are soul-less immortal beings. I'm pretty sure Christians don't regard them as evil.
Either you are being facetious or do you not realize you are the one with the nick GPLwhore? Talk about leftists...
Just thought I would point that out,
-AP
"the profits of the five largest american companies FOR ONE YEAR would feed the starving in africa for decades."
Actually, no it wouldn't.
Not because there wouldn't be enough money (obviously there is) or enough food (plenty out there), but because you could never DELIVER it to the starving Africans. Or Arminians, or whatever "starvation du jour" you like. There just ain't enough transport available, unless you put all forms of transport on the job, full time. And maybe not then.
We can't feed them, is isn't physically possible. We MAY be able to help them feed themselves, and that's a better solution, anyway.
"...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
I think you're blurring the distinction between communism and socialism.
Communism is more than just the socialist ideal that society (i.e. government) should ensure that all people are provided with at least a reasonable minimum standard of living. Communism is also a specific form of government, which has never to my knowledge been associated with effective democracy. (Yes, they do have elections in communist states, and no I don't count those as effective democracy, since the right to appear on the ballot or win the election is not universal.)
Read the book NO LOGO by Naomi Klein, if this story interests you at all.
Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
I especially love the following quote
! Wal-Mart Workers
A full 5 percent of the Top 200s' combined workforce is comprised of Wal-Mart employees. The
discount retail giant's workforce has skyrocketed from 62,000 in 1983 to 1,140,000 in 1999, making
it the largest private employer in the world. The next-largest, DaimlerChrysler, has a workforce
of 466,938--less than half the size of Wal-Mart's. Although Wal-Mart is indeed providing many
new jobs, the company is notorious for its strategy of employing armies of workers on a part-time
basis to avoid paying benefits. The firm is also adamantly anti-union. In March, Wal-Mart announced
it was closing the meat department in 180 stores two weeks after the meat cutters at one
Texas store voted to form a union -- the first successful organizing drive at an American Wal-Mart.
First off, I have friend who works for Wal-Mart in Bentonville and does VERY well for himself. Hint: Its REAL dirt cheap to live there. He programs Java and databases. He has marketable skills. Wal-Mart keeps him around and pays him handsomely in bonus money. Do some Wal-Mart store employees have very marketable skills, Im sure they do. However, outside of management I would doubt most have beyond a high school diploma. Therefore, if I can find the same talent for less, why should I pay more? Out of the goodness of my heart? Tell that to my stockholders when I get creamed on The Street. BTW, those closed up butcher shops, Texas is a "Right to Work" state meaning that individuals do not have to join a union shop if they choose not too, Wal-Mart chose not to deal with it. And yes Wal-Mart can show it can do the same thing for less from other vendors.
Excerpt:
According to ITEP,
companies use a variety of means to lower their federal income taxes, including tax credits for
activities like research and oil drilling and accelerated depreciation write-offs.
Lord No! Let's not give tax breaks to oil drilling, lets drive up California utility prices a little higher. Hell no, I want my money from Pfizer who invest $5 Billion dollars in research so they can find cures for the incredibly nasty diseases like AIDS and cancer.
Wanna encourage a behavior? Then give tax breaks towards it. We have done this and we should not be surprised that companies eagerly take those rebates. Personally, I would rather have some company drilling for oil to help California, then see it flow back to the government in the form of taxes so it can be pork barrel for Tom Daschle's South Dakota or Trent Lott's Mississippi.
All this article tells me is that if have skills to offer you will do extremely well:
While the sales of the Top 200 are the equivalent of 27.5% of world economic activity, these firms
employ only a tiny fraction of the world's workers. In 1999, they employed a combined total of
22,682,166 workers, which is 0.78% of the world's workforce.
If you don't have an education then your pretty much screwed.
Im sorry folks, but if I were to characterize most posts here they would fall into the Archimedes Ides of Wealth.
What is the Archimedes Idea of Wealth you ask?
Well it begin and ends like this. There is a finite about of money in this world. From that corporations, individuals, governments all grab for that finite amount and anytime you make money; your taking it from the pockets or in so many cases the food out of others mouths.
Why is this a fallacy?
I'm glad you asked. Is there more money or less wealth in the world then say 15 years ago? If you said, well it depends; you would be lucridiously wrong. A few examples, the rise of the Internet and Silicon Valley. Say all you want but the rise of the Internet (and subsequent fall), while may have been dramatic has created a great deal of new wealth. Cisco, Sun Micro, Lucent, Alcatel, headhunters for technical talent in great bulk, increased efficiency in procurement, finding individuals over the Internet, shopping 24/7. All of this was never around or limitied before the Internet. Did it take money from traditional industries. Perhaps but the telegraph put the Pony Express out of business. Are we better off because of both of them, yes we are. Was new wealth created? Yes it was!
So you see friends, just because you make money it does mean you are taking money. Making money is business, taking money is stealing. Know the difference, and this isn't stealing.
I leave you with this last point. Can the pie get bigger then it is right now disportionate to the rise in population. Can we create more wealth then proportion to the world population now? If do not believe we can, then I feel sorry for you and your world. Because if we cannot then for every happy American, Britian, Swiss, Japanese, or French there is a correspondingly unhappy and poverty-ridden Lebaneese, Angolian, North Korean, or Vietanemse.
I choose not to except that my happiness and success takes away from others, I choose to believe that when I bring myself up; I can help someone else as well. If you believe like me; we can make the world a better place because we can all help one another by doing out best and doing our part in this big cog we call the Earth. From the CEO to the house wife, to the brick layer to the programmer, to the woman working line trying to make a better life for her kids to the kid just out of college trying to make his Mom proud, we all have a choice to expand the pie.
BREAK THIS ARCHIMEDES IDEA OF WEALTH AND SET US ALL FREE!!
Your trying to equate the ENTIRE energy pool when you should be looking at the OPTION pool. Markets look at the variability and differences between the previous years not the total sum. The change price concerned because dumbasses in California have had rapid growth over the past 20 years and have decided they want to keep their environment clean instead. I have no problem with that. If you want to put windmills in the San Fernando Valley and catch the Santa Ana's for your power needs be my guest. But do not come crying to the rest of the country when the state of California has CONSISTENTLY imported energy from THROUGHOUT the western US during peak times, but now they have to pay for it. Lets look at pieces of the puzzle.
California has not built any new power generation within the past 20 years.
California's power generation needs have grown over that time.
California created a spot market for energy where no long-term hedging of prices could take place.
California concentrated the buying of power into one entities hands instead of relying on the consumer to create deregulation. To achieve this the electric companies in the state had to get rid of their one hedge, their own production.(Here in Texas, we started dereg on June 1 and I got companies falling over themselves to give me cheap power at my house).
With the resulting sell of generation asssets, the need to recoup investment, and the use of older equipment. The generating assets in California have had to work non-stop to meet the state's needs. Would you run a 10 year old HD singly or would you want some redundancy. This equipment generating power is for the most part 30 years old and guarantee you brother MTBF is a HELLUVA alot higher at that age.
California has one of the most f*cked power grids IN THE COUNTRY. I should know I work for a power/oil/gas trading and my Uncle works in the transmission area of one of the major utilities. You can't move power fast enough through that state.
So lets add it all up, no power, stiff environmental standards, no long-term price hedging, setup bottle neck for consumption, older generation equipment. Hmmmm, I would never guess that would have happened. All of this energy buying is option-buying NOT whole buying. I buy the right to purchase power, wanna see what that will do? Go out to Yahoo and click on the Options link for a company that just recently has news either good or bad, guess what will happen to the options? They will FLUCTUATE TREMENDOUSLY!
/me ends rant
Oh Lord no we have another. I bet we are all products of our environment, can do nothing to better ourselves without a generous handout, and have no chance for a change in our lives for the better without some sort of help. Listen mac if money attracts money, then I am one damn analomy. My grandparents grew up farming and had farmed a good deal of their lives till about 10 years ago. My Mom has toiled inside an office for shit pay for a long time in the hopes I would have a better life. Guess what, on the train of life I had to boostrap my own ticket. There are plenty of examples of individuals who have gone out and change the world and bootstraped their way into a better position in life. By your estimation: NO ONE should be able to get of the projects, NO ONE can leave the farm, NO ONE can go anywhere without the handout of someone else. Look at your communitity leaders, Im sure more then a few started out with nothing when they started their own business and have become successful since then. Maybe in some places in the world that is the case, in India, China, Tajikistan, but I like to think here the good old USA that we have grown past that class hierarchy of you are stuck where you parents were when you were born.
Yes it enables you to in your own words "make shit"; what does making shit do? Making shit gives people jobs, in creates wealth for not just the big corporation but the guy who is employed by said corporation. Making shit allows me to not have to work as hard, toil outside to grow crops, in the end, making shit creates efficiencies which in turn gives more time to go pursue what are the truly important things in life, which I agree with you on. You may not find happiness in the mall, but you will sure as hell not find it as easily breaking your back for the rest of your life and dying of Mercury poisoning like the squatting miners in Indonesia.
What do you consider REAL wealth. I consider real wealth when the point that no person will want of food, shelter, medical care. REAL wealth is making sure NO person suffers. But this wealth cannot be generated by dividing and reparsing it to everyone. TRUE REAL wealth will only be created when we can bring those at the end of the curve up to that point where NO person wants of food, shelter, and medical care. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A BELL CURVE with the distribution of wealth. That is a fact.
On a more personal note, I fucking hate when individuals think their existence is totally defined by another entity. You can think that way, but I choose not too. I believe in the power of the individual, I believe I can create a better life for others, I believe I can help others by helping myself, I believe there is not a finite amount of wealth in the world and we can generate enough wealth as a society to bring everyone up, and I believe that when we work in our own self-interest within reason we will end up acting as a servant to others.
/me ends rant last time.
Here is a little clue for you buddy. Quite frankly I have been fighting this board for the past few hours and I should be sleeping so you get the brunt.
First: Your right we sell our labor. Very good Toto here's a bisquit. Now for the bad news. I do not consider myself slave labor. I own equity in my company, get paid very well, and sit in a nice cushy chair and talk to users each day. Much better then $8.00 running CAT 5 behind a ventilation shaft with 1 inch thick dust that hasn't moved since the Ford administration. You are only slave labor if you choose to be, or you have a chain around your neck. Myself I choose my work environment by the education and the continuing education I have.
Second: Just because you saw the trailer for AI, does not mean that will happen. On the contrary, young children have been the most adept and acutally "predicting" what the future might hold, not a 50-year old director who has made some fine films but has spent his entire adult life in Hollywood. Things do not happen in a vaccuum. There are thousands who events happening in parrallel that shape the future in untold ways. No one predicted the impact of the telephone, the Internet, commerical airline travel, EDI, fiber, etc, etc, etc.
Third: Listen, I do not want everyone to have equal things. You know why, BECAUSE I WORK MY BUTT OFF! It pisses me off when individuals think that we should all have the same thing and we would be free from want and desire. Guess what buddy, want and desire drive innovation, change, invention, discovery, mass production, commidization, so you can go down to Signature Kroger and buy your imported Tofu!
If you wanna stop all that, make us all equal. Nothing good, new, or exciting will happen ever again because there is no way to increase my position in life. I am working my butt off while the jack ass next to me is sitting on his butt reading, if that happens I won't work anymore.
Go out and farm the land, I grew up on a farm. See what happens when you sweat all your days and nights to have your crop get blown away by a storm or suffer during a drought. Make your life as an HTML jockey sitting in your Aeron chair, bitching about the republicans, and wondering if Webvan will deliver all my order on time a dream.
Light me up I got Karma to BURN!
So.. governments should 'own' the world?
Money & Power should be in the hands of the people, not of a government or a corporation.
It's fun to gloat... this doesn't make the US 'evil'.
Yes, it's nto the glistening crystal land of the free that some Americans seem to believe it is.... but can you blame them? They've never seen anywhere else.
I'm Canadian. I always said I never wanted to live in the US, because I don't like a lot of their policies.. however.....
After travelling overseas for a while, I'd say that, although Canada is my first choice, the US is definately my second choice compared to the rest of the world. And if I'd grown up as an American, I'm sure it'd be my first.
Yes, the war on drugs is a losing battle. Yes, there are too many guns. Yes, you have to be 21 to consume alcohol. Yes, prior to 1974, you weren't allowed to own gold bullion. Yes, you have to report any significant cash transactions and/or money carried into the country to the government.
But police don't execute people on the spot (generally). You can expect a trial. You are free to travel and move and leave the country if you don't like it. As north americans, we are in the top 5% of the worlds standard of living. Nothing to whine about.
GDP is not a measure of economic progress, it is only one number to consider; only part of the whole picture.
As you said, if we mow each other's lawn, the GDP goes up. GDP only shows how much money is exchanging hands; it does not reflect qualitatively on what's actually going on.
that statistically, birth rate is inversely proportional to standard of living? If these people weren't starving and in chaos, but instead had nice, organized lives, birth rates would plummet. It's a natural survival tactic... life expectancy goes down, birth rates go up to cover it.
That's where I got it from too.
"Global liberalization", known to the rest of us as free trade, is a good thing. Freer markets, as proven time and time again, increase the standard of living on both sides of a free trade agreement by fostering production and consumption without the capital drag of duties and hidden taxes (usually in the form of trade concessions). Short-term job loss in specific areas are SWIFTLY offset by job growth in others, when true free trade is implemented. It amazes me that people ignore the obvious at their own peril. When trade barriers fall, standards of living rise.
Try to consider what it would be like if there were high taxes imposed on goods flowing from Long Island to Harlem or from Orange County to East LA. Do you think for a moment this wouldn't have a negative impact on those poor communities? Then why don't these people think this is the case between, say, Latin America and the US (and no, the argument of macro over micro here doesn't hold any weight).
Low taxes on corporations is a good thing. Yes, you read that right, A GOOD THING. Don't be fooled: NO corporation pays taxes, only CONSUMERS. The cost of corporate taxes are passed on to the consumers. All consumers, all the time. This HURTS the lower income families MUCH more than higher income families. Essential goods are taxed when the company that makes those goods are taxed, even when they are exempt from sales tax. Corporate taxes hurt low-income people, the poor, and it makes me sick to know that some college kids "pretend to defend" the poor by advocating high corporate taxes either in the form of direct taxes or trade barriers, when often they are just blindly following a group of jerks with their own hidden agenda.
Get the truth: www.cato.org
Being libertarian has nothing to do with being selfish you stupid shit.
As Ayn Rand said:
Which is the more immoral? The businessman who pays the bribe, or the politician who makes the bribe necessary?
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Hmm.. reread the original quote, apparently something got lost in the reason -> bullshit translation.
Let's try this in a more straightforward manner.
Let's say you're a businessman, trying to do business like a normal, sane, non-corrupt human being. Along comes a politician and says "Unless you pay me a bribe, I'm going to use my power and influence in government to have you shut down" (See Boss Crump in Memphis, TN). Now, say you want to keep your business. You know that the asshole doesn't have the right to require a bribe from you, but here he is. You can try to go to the police, they're in on the take. You can try going to other government organizations. Ditto. In the meantime, a smear campaign ensues, putting you out of business. Or, you realize that if you try and get "justice", it'll be a pyrrhic (sp? damn I'm tired) victory. So, you just pay the bribe. Hey, you're a small company and the alternative is flipping burgers.
Okay, here we go: WHo is the more immoral? You, who paid the bribe, or the politician who made it *necessary*.
Thanks!
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
[Flame suit on]
There's already a few posts mentionning that, sadly for their writers, MS isn't in there. Besides the obvious comment that you shouldn't try and see MS everywhere, I'll bite and enlighten you:
MS had revenues last year of 24.64 Bil (U.S.) with income of 10.07 Bil (U.S.).
That, revenu wise, would place it 154th in this survey...
Surprising no? You'd figure they'd have incredible revenues... it's actually less then Dell, Intel, most of the car manufacturers, etc...
This survey/study doesn't mention the market capital value of these companies. A spot where MS would probably rank close to first. But size or sales wise, there's worse then MS.
Now back to some non-MS relevant posts...
It's not fair to represent this as "the conservative position" on drugs. I consider myself a conservative (but not a Republican, since the GOP has completely abandoned the priciples of limited government), but this is one area where Buckley and his crew are just plain flat WRONG. (That's worth remarking for the simple reason that Buckley is so seldom wrong that many of his backers look the other way when his logic becomes terribly fallacious, as in this case.)
Buckley & Co. are only right on this issue in that they recognize that prohibition never works well - a sad fact of life. But they fail to acknowledge that legalizing drugs *requires* writing off an entire generation to the newly "OK" drugs - a horrendous human misery cost that we could never afford, especially now. Further, there is the continuing cost of ongoing hordes of people that will continue to destroy themsleves even once the dangers of even really destructive drugs have been amply demonstrated. The Netherlands is a good example - there are many reasons that the nation that was once the most powerful trading nation of the face of the earth has become nearly irrelevant in the modern world, but recent drug policy is certainly one reason to expect it will never reclaim that lost glory.
The simple fact is that it *is* reasonable to draw a line somewhere bewteen "soft drugs" like tobacco, alcohol, and *possibly* marijuana (all of which have a demonstrated ability to cause immense human suffering through their abuse) and "hard drugs" (LSD, herion, etc.) which have a much higher probability of destroying their users and inciting them to harm others. That line has to be drawn somewhere, and it should not be fluid. That said, it is far better to leave the line where it is now than to eliminate it entirely, something we could not do without the blood of drug victims on our hands.
Although my conservatism (like Buckley's) is rooted in libertarian principles, this is one area where the libertarian argument fails to hold water, and always will.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Gnutella is only a TOOL. Whatever purpose it serves is determined by the user. Just like a hammer can be used to drive nails into substances, it can also be used as a weapon.
That's the beauty of tools like these, I can decide EXACTLY what I want to do with them. If I decide to use gnutella to downloand mp3's and pr0n, so be it, gnutella will not prevent me from doing so. On the other hand, if I am looking for x86 instruction set documentation, gnutella is one of the best tools for the job.
Actually, I'd rather see *both* points of view. You make very good rebuttal points in your post against what might be a bit too sensationalist a piece of literature. This is good. What I'm sick of is people who are zombie-like in their following of a particular political organization's viewpoints who then close their minds to rational discussion of the pros and cons of the opposition. Everything doesn't have to be a fight. Giving people all of the correct info to fairly draw their own conclusions is a Good Thing.
o/~ Join us now and share the software
Yr an anonymous coward, but you get extra points for being correct. Yes, you understand the problem fully. We're in a very sticky wicket here in the US. How do we peacefully regain the political power we have given away over the course of the previous century?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
1. Once all competition has been destroyed, there isn't much reason to keep prices low.
As long as nobody is prohibited from entering the market, there is no such thing as "no competition". There's nothing to stop someone from undercutting Wal*Mart on their higher-margin products.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Hmmmm... There are conspiracy theories everywhere on the net. You think maybe that means something? How come you never see conspiracy theories anywhere else? Perhaps somebody wants to see Internet publications taken less seriously??
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Businesses are only interesting in influencing government because government is interested in controlling businesses. If we didn't let governments interfere with the marketplace, businesses wouldn't be able to make more money by buying legislators. So we'd have honest politicians again, because the dishonest ones wouldn't be able to make money and wouldn't be attracted to the job.
No amount of campaign finance reform is going to change the fact that when something is for sale, somebody is going to buy it. The only solution to corrupt politicians is for us -- that means you and I -- to tell our politicians that we don't want them to interfere in the marketplace.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Which is more fair? To force convicts to work to pay their keep? Or to force their victims to pay to keep their crime's perpetrator safe and in good health?
More than half the prisoners are due to our insane war on drugs. The war on drugs cannot be won for a simple reason: when you put a drug dealer in jail, you haven't reduced the supply of drugs. All you've done is create a job opening. Obviously, all the people who learned that lesson the first time around (Prohibition) have died. So now we get to re-learn it. Painfully and at great cost.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
While I have no doubt that most of the real innovation (vs. the Microsoft version of the word) happens at small companies, the standard model is that the small companies are either bought by the large companies, or their new techology is immitated or stolen outright by the large corporations. The large corporations often lack the means to invent important new technologies, but they do have the means to bring important new technologies to the mass market.
Lastly, what happened to Microsoft? I'm sure they should be on this list somewhere, but I can't find them.
While Microsoft may be a big player in the software industry, they are a dwarf when compared to the big companies from other industries. Is their income something like $24e9? Look at GM with $177e9.
those weren't little people, those were mobs of violent socialists with their own agenda.
More pragmatically, one might expect that they were mobs people with few relevant competitive skills to offer to a global economy.
The thing that amazes me is that more emphasis is being put upon services and intangible businesses. A service increases sales / GNP but does not produce anything - if I mow my neighbour's lawn and he mows mine and we charge each other, our sales have increased compared to if we stick to our own turf.
75% of the GDP of a modern economy is based on Services, and services are production. If I write a computer program for you and you give me money for it, that's production. It does something useful (well, we hope; that's what we exchange our hard-earned money for). If we mow each other's lawn, that's production. If you mow your own lawn, that's also production, although it will be unreported production to the GDP.
But even unreported production increases a person's standard of living. For exampe, fifty years ago, most women were housewives and their primary job was to raise children, clean the house, and prepare meals. While this production was normally unreported and not included in the GDP, it was still important and increased our standard of living. Today, the situation has changed, and our standard of living has been affected.
We are all being exploited for the only thing we can barter with, our slave labor. Governments and corporations are the slave masters. Both capitalism and communism are systems of slave labor.
Strangely, we are the most pampered slaves with the highest standard of living in all of history.
Freedom comes from owning a piece of the earth. Unless you control a piece of income property, you are a slave. Communism confiscates all property and enslaves everybody. Capitalism gives property to a few and enslaves the vast majority.
And what exactly is everyone supposed to do with their little piece of the Earth? Farm it? Grow their own crops? Quite frankly, I would rather write computer programs than break my hump on a plot of dirt like people did hundreds of years ago. If you think these people had life easier or better than us, then you are sadly mistaken.
You seem to equate all work with slavery. Am I supposed to sit on my butt all day long and vegitate to avoid being a "slave"? Or should I exchange something of value (computer skills) for something of value (the means to acquire the things that I need or want), and increase everyone's standard of living in the process?
A course in macro economics should be a required component of everyone's education.
The real collapse will occur when these resources start to run out. This appears to be starting to happen to both oil and natural gas right now.
As far as I am aware, there's little danger of running out of oil for hundreds of years. The only reason that oil prices are high right is that the oil cartels have agreed to shut down production in order to keep the prices artifically high, in order to maximize profits. Monopoly abuse and collusion like this is supposed to be illegal, but this is a complex international matter.
Of course, the cartels need to walk a fine line. If their prices go too high, people will begin to adopt alternatives.
"Corporations aren't evil"
Well they are soul-less immortal beings who are summoned by a cabal of priest like humans who scribetexts in an arcane language. Once summoned into being these creatures then serve the people who summoned them.
In every culture there are soul-less immortal beings and in every culture they are regarded as being evil.
Also consider that corporations have no souls and therefore have no moral imperitive. A corporation has only a profit imperitive. If you are a follower of christ then this might seem like an evil being (love of money being the root of all evil and all that). A corporation exists only from the love of money and only to feed that love by collecting money.
Weather you think a corporation is evil or not depends on your own religious upbringing and your god. I thik that in a christian outlook corporation are most certainly evil. If you are moslem less so (mohammed was not as anti-capitalist as christ but even he was adamant about thiting). If you are budhist you do not think in terms of good an evil but in terms of attachment and the I am pretty sure the Budha would regard corporations and attachment to money and worldly things as leading to misery. If you are an atheist then of course corporations are not evil.
War is necrophilia.
Last I checked the median income in the US was about 35K. Which is pretty pathetic if you ask me.
War is necrophilia.
As opposed to all those liberterians who are really republicans. Like the cato institute which is nothing more then a fund rasing arm of the republican party and has never met a democrat they likes and never met a republican they didn't like?
War is necrophilia.
Yes. Now you get it. Nothing in this world is as black and white. Sorry to tax your brain but it's true!. Even evil people have done some good things and Mother Theresa probably did one bad thing in her lifetime.
War is necrophilia.
Hey wait a minute you are asking a republican to think.
War is necrophilia.
"dog liberal communist anti-capitalist pro-government anti-achievement idiot scum."
My dog is a superior being then you in every way imaginable.
War is necrophilia.
We used to feel superior to nations who used prison labor now of course we are amongst them. Consider this.
The reason why there is a war on drugs (or for that matter there are a billion laws in the books) is so that we can jail people at will. By increasing the prison population we are providing a source fo cheap labor for the major corporations of the world who are in turn giving money to politicians who pass more laws.
I will guarantee you this. Every day you break a law the only reason you are not in jail is because a cop let you skate.
War is necrophilia.
Yeay. We are number two or three!
War is necrophilia.
Who says angels have no souls?
War is necrophilia.
This 80%/20% number is not for wealth (it is for income), and not for the U.S. (it is for the world).
"A 1993 UNDP report noted that the wealthiest 20% of humanity receives 82.7% of the world's income."
-- taken from here: http://www.idrc.ca/library/document/103249/chap3.h tml
Income distribution isn't quite that bad in the US, the top 20% get a little under 50% of the income. See http://www2.kenyon.edu/people/schalliold/ch1.htm
The distribution of wealth is much worse for both cases. I don't have figures for the world, but in the U.S. the top 10% of the population owns over 80% of the assets. -- see http://www.billtotten.com/english/ow1/00268.html
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose? Sounds like a folk rock song from the 60's.
-Bruce
Heh ... here I was trying to figure out what you were talking about, claiming that liberals were socialists. Then I remembered:
Being Liberal or having right political leanings is the same as conservatism here in Australia. Supporting Labor or having left political leanings here in Australia is the same as being an American liberal (which is broadly the same as socialism).
Don't mind me, I'll just be standing in the corner looking confused ...
This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.
Let's remember for a minute who issues corporate charters.
Corporations are entities created by the state to concentrate control of wealth into the hands of a few. Excessive corporate power should be of concern both to libertarians on both the right and the left (due to its origins in the government) and to leftists of both statist and libertarian leanings (due to its tendancy to exploit laborers).
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Your $100 investment in Amalgamated Profits, Incorporated, does not give you any control over the corporation. It does, however, put more wealth under the control of the Board of Directors, who will act in the interests of the handful of majority stockholders (who, in many cases, are other corporations), to crush competition (thus reducing your choices in the marketplace), buy politicians (for reasons probably not in your best interest), etc.
Excepting employee-owned companies, the wealth that is gained through stock options is negligible compared to that gained by "absentess owner" stockholders.
Yes, because you had to be asleep to believe in it. The idea that anyone, with the right effort, can rise from poverty to wealth is a wonderful way to keep the poor from rising up. (Almost as good as the promise of eternal reward in an afterlife they used to use to keep serfs in line.) Like hitting the jackpot in Vegas, it happens just often enough to keep suckers believing, and feeding the system.Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I demand food and shelter. A nice internet connection would be good too :)
How we know is more important than what we know.
Socialism read it and dont open your mouth again until you know what you are talking about.
How we know is more important than what we know.
if by "economic system" you mean, "best for promoting a divide between the low, middle and high classes of society unlike any ever known to man" I'd tend to agree.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Not to mention petty opportunism. You lived under those who claimed to support Marx's thesis and then went on to misquote him and twist his words for their own ends. Where are you living now? Aren't you settling for that?
How we know is more important than what we know.
P2 is a false assumption, it is precisely this which makes "mom and pop" businesses preferable to their corporate counterparts. P3 is debatable. P4 is false, demonstratable that I knowly consume resources that I do not need to complete my job *cough* posting on slashdot *cough* therefore reducing profits. :)
How we know is more important than what we know.
I didn't say you did, I said the people you were living under did.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Ever play the game Syndicate back in the day?
How we know is more important than what we know.
That's because it is a premise. Something most people would agree upon. If you would like to argue about it, go ahead. I think this link adequately describes the effects of unions and that in the case of monopoly unions (who specifically do maximize wages at any cost) this argument holds. Is an "average worker" who seeks to maximize his/her wages at the cost of (for example) his/her fellow employees evil?
How we know is more important than what we know.
by contridiction:
by analogy:
by cause/effect:
by facts and circumstances:
see article.
How we know is more important than what we know.
There's something called "forced labor". Forced labor is wrong - nobody should be able to force you to work and you should be free to decide to work or not (and if so, face the consequences).
Forced labor is illegal in every decent western country - as well as death penalty btw. Of course the US, being 100 year backward socially, still has a long way to go to realize this (well we have to be patient, they waited till the 60s to stop appartheid, so death-penalty shouldn't be stopped before the years 2100s at best).
Great, we are getting better productivity than ever.
...and replace it with what ?
Not really - if you know how to read, you've probably read the setences below that explain that the reason for such low employment is because most of the stuff - especially the "dirty" stuff, is subcontracted.
This is why France and EU want to punish countries with significantly lower tax rates. For obvious reasons they cannot get at US so for now they are after smaller countries.
Yes. So ? What does this change ? Don't see any opposition between this and the original document. The day fiscal havens will be squashed will be a great day for all of us (and a bad day for money launderers, drug cartels & the CIA).
How about democracy ? We don't need GM to tell us what to do.
You didn't understood the text did you ? They say corporation earn more money (sales) than countries (GDP). Nowhere does it says corporations have more money than the governement. You are just rewriting the text so you can say "look the bad leftish commies !!! they want more governement"
Not in the US. In the US everything & everyone is either black XOR white. Heck, even the census bureau had to wait till the 21st century to allow peoples to check more than one box on the race question. Look at justice, it's the same - you are either a nice law abidding citizen, or an evil criminal. There's no in-between.
Not much different from the other peoples who go around saying "free market will save us all". They can't get by without thinking the magical market will solve all problems, despite the fact that said market is made of corporations who don't give a shit about solving any problem at all (except for one : how to make MORE money).
It changes a lot. Why should my country be punished because people in France and most of other countries in Europe enjoy paying large tax ?
First, unless you live in Gernesey, Bahamas, Monaco or another of those fiscal haven, I doubt your country is going to be "punished". Those tiny countries makes business solely because they don't tax any money and don't ask where it comes from and tell anyone about it. It's the place money laundering is being done in - and there's no reason not to punish those states for helping organised criminality in such a big way.
Second, it's not about punishement. It's about being fair. The idea here is "If you want to do business with Europe, you have to use the same tax structure and banking laws as we do. If you don't like it, fine, but then do business with someone else.". It's not a punition, it's establishing basic rules with countries Europe does business with. Commerce between two people/companies/countries is always based on the acceptance of basic rules.
Economical sanctions directed at nations with low tax.
No - again it's nations with NO tax and heavy banking secret.
Frankly, why should elected officials in Europe be even concerned about tax rates beyond their own borders?
Because it disturbs the economy within their borders ? The US tries to get hormone-beef allowed in Europe despite strong suspicions that it's a big threat for health - and it shoudln't be any of US business either. If you dislike paying more taxes because of another country, try thinking how pleased you'd be to be poisened by another country because this country thinks it's "almost safe enough to eat".
I'll agree with you - but strictly speaking this is still not forced labor. Forced labor also includes not being paid for your work (or getting not paid enough compared to what the same "free" worker would earn for the same job in the same place).
I'm not that familliar with the US consitution (not being American), but if what you say is true, then it's time to ditch it in the trash and write a new one immediatly. Slavery should be illegal - plain and simple (and while you are at it, maybe the 2nd amendment could also be rewritten with something at least more clear).
And what gives you right to deny them this business?
I (my country) have no right to deny them business except business with my economy. As far as I know, Europe is free to refuse to do business with any country it wants.
You are not going to get poisoned. Please, be more serious here and rely on scientific data as opposed to hearsay
It's not hearsay - hormone-enhanced meat (beef/chicken/etc.) was allowed in Europe and then got banned during the 80s because a lots of medical studies discovered there was a correlation between those hormones and cancer. It's no more hearsay than global warming (despite what Bush and Texaco say).
No, your country is trying to pas international law to force all members of these international organizations to deny them business.
So ? There's no such thing as international laws. There are national laws and international treaties. Every country is free to sign or not both. If other countries than Europe agree to follow Europe on this issue, that's fair. No one is being forced into anything.
Oh so you have chosen to believe Al Gore?
Nope - choosen to believe what elderly, experienced and wise scientists are saying vs what Texaco and Bush say. I might be wrong, but those scientists seems to know better what they are talking about. Texaco has a huge vested interest in not fighting global-warming, and hence cannot be trusted, and Bush has always supported the oil industry so he can't be trusted either (that and the fact that he is a total idiot and a puppet)
I'd like to know your source. Because according to the Kyoto protocol, 90% of the earth countries seems to think global warming is a reality. Oddly enough, those countries who oppose are those whose economy rely heavily on coal and oil...
There are also a bunch of scientist saying Darwin was wrong and that the earth was created by God a few thousands years ago. That don't make Darwin wrong and/or Bible thumbers right. You'll always find lunatics claming the earth really is flat, or global warming is in your imagination (despite the very fact that everyone can see the climate changing). The scientific majority, including those scientist published in well respected magazines like Nature, say global warming is a reality. Those who claim otherwhise - and spread this message - are oil companies and oil producing countries... you simply cannot trust them - even if you like the fuzzy feeling nice message they are passing around : "everything is fine, the earth is safe, you can keep release billions of tons of CO in the air and nothing at all will ever happen". Those spin-doctors are the same who claimed tobacco was harmless, or that no, there's no worry to have about standing without protection 2 km away from a nuclear explosion (and they had scientist to back this crap too just like now).
And if you still aren't convince, apply the old principle "better safe than sorry".
True - but then they can still pass laws that somehow makes moving your money thru the Bahamas and Monaco impossible. This is not a trade barrier, this is "money laundering control" :)
If there was a shareholder vote, and they voted to give 20% of the profits to charity, the board would comply.
That's a nice idea - but you forget companies are owned in a big majority by other companies... who also seek the highest profit because they are owned by other companies (etc.). I've yet to see Nike shareholders stand up and say "stop exploiting those people, let's pay them a fair amount of money, and you can cut my profits by 10% to do that".
You have to be careful with that. These figures typically represent contributions by employees of the company. So you can't necessarily attribute all of them to the company itself.
On the other hand, when Jack Valienti gives $200,000 to the Bush campaign, you know whose interests that represents.
"There is nothing more pathetic than a slave who thinks he is free."
Wrong. There is nothing more pathetic than a free person who thinks he is a slave.
Try it. Go walk out of your job. They wont hold a gun to your head. Get a rucksack, and start walking the earth. No one will stop you. Go speak to women in Afghanistan or sex slaves in Thailand. Then start talking about freedom.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
I'm willing to accept that some people will make foolish decisions that negatively affect their lives. I'm not willing to sacrifice my freedom so that you can try (and fail, for the most part) to protect a small number of people from themselves.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
That may have been the meaning long ago, but it doesn't really apply today, at least in the US. If you look at major political issues today, for example taxes, Social Security, and education, for the most part it is conservatives who want reform and liberals who defend the status quo. The simplest definition of a conservative would be "someone who wants less government", and even that doesn't apply all the time.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Why not? Under capitalism, the way to make lots of money is to produce something that lots of people want. Why isn't that good? It is true that some companies have found they can make more money by getting government to use its coercive power on their behalf (see RIAA), but that is an indictment of excessive government power, not capitalism.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The funny thing to me is that this sounds like something you'd delegate off to a PR firm.... "Change people's opinions so that it's socially acceptable to use our product!"
Wah!
the State assuming ownership of the means of production, (which is the hallmark of Communism.)
actually this is a hallmark of Socalism, but Americans have a skewed view of communism because of that damned cold war. (which really got messed up when they were suddenly our friends, go figure)
Anywho, in a real communist state, the people figure it out that both coporations and governement are bad and break up both accordingly. Communist states attempt to force this change on the populace with varying results(china's doing pretty well, North Korea is in the toliet, again, go figure)
And I believe (and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one) that people ARE GREEDY . People follow the path of least resistance, and following the path of resistance is what makes a river crooked. blah blah blah get over yourselves
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
so says the minion who posts from work. bah, why wasn't this modded up to +2 funny?
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
A small portion, but most of the larges companies in the world are publically traded. And while the small companies may outweigh the large companies in total revenues, the large companies have much more power.
However, it is much easier to prove direct monetary loss rather than more nebulous concepts. Sure, if there is a vote to give x% to charity that is one things. However, if a company doesn't enforce a patent, or doesn't apply for one, or licenses it cheaply because it is deemed too important to restrict, they will in all likelyhood be prosecuted by their shareholders or by Milberg Weiss and friends. *EVEN IF* in the long run such an action is beneficial to the company. Likewise, directors of a corporation can take actions that the majority of the shareholders wouldn't approve of, but as long as it doesn't show up as red ink, they are in practice pretty safe from prosecution (again, unless they are directly violating something the shareholders voted on)
Don't get me wrong, I am not really anti-corporation. I just think that governments and corporations should be seperate entities. Corporations are gaining political power so fast that it looks like soon there will be little pratical distiction.
Listen. If I have $100 in Microsoft stock and I want them to make a Linux version of Office, are they going to do that? No. They'll do what the majority of the shareholders (not people, the amount of shares they control) want. Corporations don't operate on the principle of one stockholder one vote, they operate based on the amount of stock you hold. So in effect, you buy your influence, which is not democratic.
I don't see anybody calling for an end to corporations or profits, what they want is some control over their lives, which you don't have unless you're a stockholder. When corporations get copyrights on the laws they write and lobby for laws that benefit their needs over the needs of people, democracy suffers. I can replace a scummy politician with a less savory one every few years. I do not have the option of removing Michael Eisner from Disney, or boardmembers from companies that knowingly pollute the environment because it's cheaper to pay fines than prevent the pollution in the first place.
If corporations want the benefits they get from the government they should have to abide from the same laws as its citizens.
And it is debatable how much wealth they create for the average jack and joe.
The Top 200s' combined sales are 18 times the size of the combined annual income of the 1.2 billion people (24 percent of the total world population) living in "severe" poverty.
We are all being exploited for the only thing we can barter with, our slave labor. Governments and corporations are the slave masters. Both capitalism and communism are systems of slave labor.
Freedom comes from owning a piece of the earth. Unless you control a piece of income property, you are a slave. Communism confiscates all property and enslaves everybody. Capitalism gives property to a few and enslaves the vast majority. They fool you into thinking you are free but you are not. You are made to compete against your fellow slaves for a living. There is nothing more pathetic than a slave who thinks he is free. It's sad.
As technology progresses, the system will eventually die a horrible death. What will happen to a slave economy when robots and advanced artificial intelligences replace all the slaves, i. e., when human labor, knowledge and expertise become worthless? It will colapse, that's what.
And don't think for a minute this won't happen in your lifetime. The internet is the latest giant leap in human communication. Before that came mass telecommunication technologies and before that was the movable press. If history is any indication, we can expect a giant leap in technological progress and scientific knowledge. In fact, it is happening before our very eyes.
The wealth of the earth is the earth. We should all demand a system where everybody is guaranteed an estate, a piece of the pie. There is plenty for everybody. Even animals are wise enough to set territories for themselves. What we do with our piece is up to us. No more slavery, no more exploitation! Down with the slave masters!
Demand liberty! Nothing less.
I think that it's safe to assume that each of the "Top 200 corporations" are based in one of the "biggest 10" countries. This puts their sales in the GDPs that were excluded from the comparison.
I write trance music.
As far as I know, Capitalism is still the best economic system. The primary goal of governements world wide should be to promote capitalism! Not only the leftists but also the rightists should agree... As least anyone that likes nice cars and houses and toys and etc. should agree.
I have not met many people who don't want those things. So, until everyone in the world decides that they do not want those things, a greed driven economic system (Capitalism) is the only one we know of that really works.
Most of the posters on
There's an old saying:
When you are young, it is very easy to say, "NOT FAIR! YOU'RE CHEATING! SHARE!" As you get older, you begin to realize that the "they" weren't cheating, they'd just been playing the game longer than you and better understood the rules. You begin to see that "they" have more than you because they've been working longer. You being to realize that those laws you wanted to enact will have consequences that you will have to suffer (e.g. more welfare == more taxes == you have less money).
When you get older, you realize that you were never given a guarantee that life would be fair, or easy. You realize that sometimes bad things happen to good people, and you are powerless to stop it. That shouldn't prevent you from doing what you can, but you realize you will not be able to solve everything. An analogy: while it breaks my heart to think of all the animals the shelter must put down every day, I cannot adopt them all. This doesn't mean that I shouldn't try to help out with donations of food or money, but it does mean that dogs and cats will still be gassed and burned.
I suspect that, assuming
www.eFax.com are spammers
At least the corporations earn the money, instead of just stealing (err, taxing) it.
Most blue-chips, like GM, pay dividends. It's mostly the tech sector and small firms that grow quickly enough to show quick profits on the stock price side.
There are even many mutual funds specializing in dividend-paying stocks, if you want to go that way.
I dunno. The guys running the Soviet Union, with their cabins out in the woods, playgrounds on the Black Sea, and limousines didn't seem to be too equal with the "workers" standing in line for bread in Moscow.
No other system has produced a society where "poor" people drive cars, own their own trailers, and eat at McDonald's.
Yeah, the rich have a lot of money, but there aren't very many of them. Wealth accumulation is a constant problem - you get an aristrocracy by default. But overall, capitalism as practised by the western democracies has proven to be by far the best system for delivering wealth gains across the board. Sure it's not perfect, but then what is?
How long did it take you to figure this one out. I'm not sure when the open source movement took such a leftist tilt, because non of its leaders are active politically or take part in this corporate-bashing practice (Linus doesn't even MS-bash). Of course, college kids tend to be to left, until they start paying taxes, and I think a big chunk of /. viewers are comp-sci undergrads. Personally, I think the editors of /. are really leftists, because they are about to get sacked by VA Linux and they want some excuse for why.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Corporations are entities created by the state to concentrate control of wealth into the hands of a few.
I don't understand why you think this to be true. Most of these large corporations are publicly held. That means anyone can invest in them, and share in the wealth if they do well. Sole proprietorships and partnerships limit wealth to those few who can personally raise enough capital to start and maintain a business. The exhistence of corporations allows a large number of people to pool their resources and share in the benefits. If also allows employees with stock benefits a chance to achieve considerable levels of wealth if the company they work for does well.
This makes it much more possible for a person who starts life with little to aquire wealth. It requires hard work and motivation to get the education and learn the proper skills. It also is harder for poor people to get a good education, and to learn those skills, but there are a lot of people who do it. It used to be considered the "American Dream".
1) the religious whackos (who don't want us to see God on our own time);
I'll just leave this one alone. The way the statment is made it's just a troll.
2) The corporations (it was business owners in southern california that originally outlawed marijuana; primarly because Mexican labor was "difficult to control" while high.
It's hard to get good work out of people when they're high. It seems to me that it does depend some on the type of work, and the type of drug. Basically, if poeple come to work messed up, productivity and safety are likly going to suffer. Personally, I think companies should be able to fire the people who aren't doing their jobs. What the employees do on their own time is their own business, but if you come to work messed up, and it effects you doing your job, then they should take care of the problem with THAT person.
3) the police state, which expends massive amounts of money in and out of the USA attempting to stop illicit drugs, then bills the taxpayer accordingly;
Police want to stop drug use because they feel it would reduce crime, and there's probably a lot of truth to this. Drug users (and people who just want the government out of their personal lives) say if drugs weren't illegal then people wouldn't be breaking so many laws to get them. There seems to be a lot of truth to this as well, but in places where gambling is illegal there's still a lot of people who commit crimes to feed their addictions. It's a complicated problem with no easy answer.
4) the countries producing illegal drugs, since the black market allows them to create a bindle of powder for $0.25 and sell it to the end user for $100, but only if it's kept illegal.
There are people in those countries that make a lot of money off of illegal drugs, but that money doesn't seem to help the people of those countries much. The money just seems to corrupt the governments and the people of that country get screwed.
Corporations are legally bound to put shareholder profits ahead of quality or value to the end user/buyer, which is devastating to the free market.
In a free market, corporations which consistently put out products which are a poor value to consumers will go out of business. Truely dominant monopolies can put out poor products and get away with it. Cartels can put out poor products and get away with it. But those are cases where the market is no longer free. Even Microsoft has to put out a product that does a decent job of meeting most people's needs. If they don't then competition will tear down the "barriers to entry" in the OS market.
Liberal != Socialist;
Socialist != Communist;
Communist != Marxist;
Marxist != Stalinist
# At least not in Europe
Dude, I ain't looking for love amongst a bunch of 20-something male computer nerds. 'Nuff said.
Well, in the short term.
In the longer term, if you perform this activity regularly to get money, people will run away from you anytime they see you and it will require much more effort to get the same amount of money.
If you provide a service or good that other people want, then people will COME FIND YOU in order to give you money in exchange for that good or service.
As you say, this is so basic that if you won't accept it, there's no communication...
The thing that amazes me is that more emphasis is being put upon services and intangible businesses. A service increases sales / GNP but does not produce anything - if I mow my neighbour's lawn and he mows mine and we charge each other, our sales have increased compared to if we stick to our own turf.
This being the case, it has to be asked if the world is really still advancing in standard of living (as measured by material wealth). Are we really getting more efficient, or just looking good by shuffling money around?
It should also be pointed out that this is not necessarily all bad. This appears to be a case of the rich getting richer, but a lot of not-so-rich people own shares in these companies, so it does not necessarily indicate this. And, while many of the companies on the list are notorious for their lack of ethics (looking at no. 28 in particular), there are also many there who I do consider to be generally well behaved. Is a huge corporation which has reasonable ethical standards and does its best to please its customers still evil?
However, I doubt many of those 1.2 billion poorest people have shares in General Motors.
Lastly, what happened to Microsoft? I'm sure they should be on this list somewhere, but I can't find them.
...yeah, they're only buying them now!
<---[singularity sig]
Look, there is time for everything. People are getting uneasy with rampant corporationalism we are seeing novadays, with reason I would say. Many people are confusing this unrest with socialism and are sadly missing the whole point. Corporations have served mankind well and will continue to do so, they just need moderation. It is possible to be too powerful.
I am personally a big supporter of Tobins tax initiative, an effort to give the control back to whom it belongs.
> However, I don't understand when Slashdot went communist.
Hey, Americans. The Cold war is over. Know why? Cause you realized that Communism wasn't inherently evil. Or else, that was what you were supposed to realize...
Remember, Communism != Evil.
But by my account, screwing me out of money as much as is possilbe is evil. It's just the flip side of the coin.
Corporations as such have no power. It is overgrown goverment that provides them with such. A big difference.
Not so.
1.) If you have lots of money, then you have power.
2.) Corporations have lots of money.
3.) Ergo, corporations have power, regardless of any overgrown governmens supplying them with more (though, this certainly increases their power even more).
So, the question is not whether to be anti-big-corporation or anti-big-government. If you are against one thing, you should be against the other as well. "The State and the Capital, they sit in the same boat." - Ebba Grön
/Dervak
Communism is just the socialist ideal. That Stalin (and numerous other dictators) have co-opted its name in their rise to power doesn't make the government styles they adopted communist. Is China a republic (they after all call themselves "The Peoples Republic of China")? Are the numerous totalitarian countries that call themselves democracies really democracies? No. Marx's "Communist Manifesto" doesn't go into the form of government much beyond that it is "a dictatorship of the people" (my emphasis). What's a dictatorship of the people? I don't know, (I'd argue democracy) but it certainly isn't dictatorship of Stalin, Mao or Castro.
It should be noted that I haven't read Marx is 6-8 years, so I may be a bit fuzzy...
-n
Repost: Slashdot seems to have forgotten who I was...
Your lawyer might just as well find out that environmental regulations were recently thrown out due to commercial "necessity" / corp. lobbying / corrupt politicians / any other form of corporate influence on local politics.
Or that the company has got a special permission to violate them. Maybe the harm they do to you isn't recognized, or even impossible to prove. It may be your own fault for not keeping their fumes off your own ground.
Class action suits might not be possible (e.g., they're not allowed here in Germany).
Do you really think you can always defend any justified case?
Kiwaiti
Member of the Legion Of Microsoft Haters
"Movie producers are probably okay. They survived without money from video rentals before and will again if need be. As long as they can provide a compelling experience in the theater, they will be fine. The VCR gave them additional revenue. If they lose it, they'll come up with another one. Bitch all you want about the MPAA, they're much better behaved than the RIAA. The DVD region encoding annoys me (I still haven't bought a DVD player), but it isn't as bad as the RIAA's actions towards artists."
I would have to argue that, with the current media hype surrounding various music-file sharing services, many people involved with the making of many movies or music would be very interested in the added attention of a lawsuit concerning these services. We musn't forget that people are people and will always want more of what they have now or don't yet have. Movie producers are just the same as you and me: they would like greater revenue from their movies. Keep in mind, too, that greater revenues often rates the degree success.
p.s. I would have to agree with you on your comments about Slashdot.
"The U.S. has more people in jail than an other country." I heard it as the US houses 25% of the *worlds* prison population. A US citisen is more likely to be improsoned than a citisen in any other country, so are you lot born evil, or do you have unjust laws by international standards. Its rather ironical considering the values the US tries to promote. Land of the free... ha, bloody haha
"Sounds racist?"
Yes it does, its unfortunate that in lots of countries, not just the US that its the socio-economically disadvantaged people that are driven to extreme actions to try and survive, and are jailed when resorting to something that a more powerfull person would not.
It comes back to nature v's nurture, either people are born evil, or they learn to be evil from society that they interact with.
If its the later then society should willing accept that society is in a small part responsible for the crime due to not providing an acceptable environmont from which to draw acceptable values from.
Criminals are victims of society
People should be held responisble for their actions, being in desperate circumstances isnt an excuse to be a law unto yourself.
If society was just and fair the "the worst neighbourhood" shouldnt be a place to avoided.
When i say "Criminals are victims of society" i mean that society is in a *small* part responsible for the upbringing of its people so they have to accept *some* responsiblity for people having values that allow them to justify committing crime.
Or do you beleive some people are destined to be criminals from birth ?
Those pushing for more democracy should consider replacing medical accreditation with a thumbs up/thumbs down vote at the local pub.
Yeah, I like our current system much better, where medical accreditation is controlled by state medical boards that are loath to publicly humiliate one of their own and sit on their hands.
In theory, it's great for experts to evaluate and regulate a field full of professionals, but I think our current system has demonstrated that conflict of interest can be a practical impediment to its effectiveness.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I quote the article:
"The Top 200 corporations' combined sales are bigger than the combined economies of all countries minus the biggest 10"
It's safe to assume that when the original poster said "government", he was referring the GDP of a country.
The part that scared me, was that the top 200 had more money then the world's govt. combined. Makes the notion of big business influencing govt. much more pleusable.
That's logically impossible since the GDP of a country includes the revenue of companies operating within the country.
I thought the idea was the bigger the corporation, the slower moving and more like a dinosaur it was ?
I thought the small, agile, companies were going to rule in this era of increasing change ?
The size of a company is limited primarily by the ability of its management to manage complexity - operations that span across continents and industries.
Advances in transportation, information networks and information technology have made this task easier than before. Therefore it is not surprising that the big are getting bigger.
Your solution is the opposite of a good solution. To stay alive and well we have to cooperate, educate and help eachother. With the many number of people living today, we have to maintain high technology and efficient infrastructure to support society with all its needs. No revolution is going to save us from ourselves.
Take a moments pause. Just think over your own life. Don't pity yourself. Realize how well you really are, how much you have and how many choices you really do have. Mostly, it's yourself that is limiting your choices - your so-called freedom that you think others can hand over to you. It's yourself that is doing what other people expect of you, or blaming yourself when you fail to meet them. It's yourself that is pitying yourself, even though on the other side of the globe, or even a few blocks away, many people have a really shitty life. Have you ever said "Thank you" for everything you have? If other people around you had abundance of wealth and goods, wouldn't you wish they would share with you? Especially if you were dying of hunger while eating garbage?
Take another moment. A deep breath. Think about what really matters in your life. What you would really miss if it were to go away FOR EVER. Don't stop at material things. Think friends, education, health, community, cleanliness, food, family and pets for instance. Find your own answers, you can even try to rate what is most important and what is not on a scale. Writing it down helps focus, and if you find the paper after a few years you will always discover something important about yourself.
The problem you seek to right, is not in others, but within yourself. In all of us, but noone can force an involuntary positive change in others. That would be pointless; without any meaning. Some would say it would even be a crime. Aside from that, fact is that we in the western world, as a population, are better off than most people ever were in known history. But we aren't grateful, because we want MORE. That is the whole problem. We're like a black hole, our biggest fear being ourselves.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Small errand here - you try to buy a naked PC, ie try to spend your money without Microsoft getting a dime, voting is hard...
You try to buy recording media, without the RIAA getting a dime (ever heard of compensation tax? do you have that too in your country?)
You try to not-consume at all, but the kids have to go to school and that costs money, you try to grow your own crops, and you'l still pay taxes. Everything is connected, voting with your wallet is not possible.
--
Bizar technology?
They did. Globalization is the process to fight poverty in third world countries. I watched a very interesting documentory on this topic about one year ago.
Changing the rules have not only re-slaved the people, it has also recolonized "poor" countries. Take an example for India. A small village had its own traditions for ages, the men did some farming, the women fetched water from a lake. One day Mr. World Bank comes and tells the village people to import their food, and stay away from the lake as Coca Cola has bought it. Most people will say - well hey, there's nothing wrong with change and this is the way the world bank thinks.
The problem is that in processes like these, we pay attention to wealth, but we ignore emotion. In the world of globalization, emotion is unimportant, emotion is killed by logic. So is there nothing wrong with change then?
Emotion is important for well-being, but a lot of people do not care about this. Fortunately there are quite a lot of people still who do care. Those are the protesters who'll hit the streets when there's one of those World Trade conferences.
Another thing is, that the first world has an economic system, in this system it is all about demand and supply. Probably everybody has some item, economically completely woorthless, but which has emotional priceless value, ie a cheap necklace of your deceased mother. The supply/demand system has been projected onto the systems of third world countries, the emotional priceless became worhtless. So our first world system has become a method of proof that those 'poor' countries are actually poor. I suppose if we'd use a different system to measure, those countries aren't poor at all.
Reconolization has happened in Uganda. First the World Bank sends money to the government (a loan), invests in hydrolautical power plants and so on, but there is a cultural problem with wealth. In the first world, people walk fast, speed with their cars and are hyperactive especially when there is money in their game. The Ugandian people do not have such life-rythmns. With a shortage on efforts (cultural problem, they're not used to it), many investment projects failed. The governmental tax income was less then the interest the country had to pay for the loans to the world bank. Uganda is bankrupt.
From the people who invested in Uganda, nobody actually cared about their culture. The undereducated people did not understand what was happening, they still do not understand that they to pay an effort to build their country. Meanwhile, Uganda has become private property of the world bank and obscene wealthy corporates.
The only way this can be changed is when people massively value their own emotions. Logic can be fought with emotion, you just need to pay attention and not let yourself to be pushed of your track.
--
Bizar technology?
Microsoft cannot force me to use Windows against my will on my home computer. I'm happy using Mandrake. If I go to work at a company that uses Windows for example, I must abide by the terms of my employment one of those being to use Windows unless I can show that Linux or MacOS X is a better solution to my company's problems. Are multinationals all bad too? I don't think so. If I don't like Sony I can go to another local electronics maker like Philips, or another multinational. Besides, all a multinational is, is a company with an office or two outside its home country.
Do as the company does, meaning leverage your power... Use existing social structures to get what you want and deserve. If you believe something is wrong, whining about it is the least effective.
"Weakness is implanted" to a certain extent, but at what point do we hold people accountable for choices??
See that is where our philosophies collide : you say weakness is implanted and accept it, I acknowledge the same point but do NOT tolerate it.
Much like a serial killer; is the enviorment with which he was raised a contributor to his actions? More than likely. But, although there were external forces that contribued to his negative action, does that mean that we should tolerate this action, absolutely not.
You will tolerate mediocracy. You're probably the same person that believes he can't do anything to these big corporations because you don't have enough brains, talent, money, etc. Time is of your greatest resource; engage in something greater than yourself.
Idealism is how progress is made.
= AAntix =
"Shake yur bon bon"
Why is it, when there is an issue of contention, that thousands take to the streets and hold their signs up high? Because, they are among the primitive, the weak, and their only form of power arises in numbers and voice. The best idea they can come up with in combatting an issue of concern is to stand on a corner and whine about it.
Merely complaining about the powers that be is doing nothing to combat the situation.
REMEMBER, EVERYTIME you turn on the TV, everytime you play Ages of Empires, everytime you go watch a movie, YOU ARE MAKING A CHOICE. If the issue bothers you that much, maybe a reassessment of your usage of time is in need.
Large corporations exists and can continue to exist because they are NOT ignorant of the system; they know HOW to get change leveraged in their favor. Their superiority is NOT by accident.
So model your life in the same way. Don't make your fate an accident: go out there, get what you *deserve*, just as the large corporations have.
=AAntix=
"Shake yur bon bon"
Acting in shareholder interests is. If the board takes actions to hurt the company, they can get hit by a shareholder lawsuit. However, the shareholders can adopt whatever goals they want. If there was a shareholder vote, and they voted to give 20% of the profits to charity, the board would comply.
This notion that the law requires corporations to rape and pillage is taken as fact on Slashdot, but is absurd.
1) Most corporations are NOT publically traded. This issue, maximizing profits to run up stock prices, is only true for publically traded companies, a SMALL portion of corporations.
2) The board of directors acts on behalf of the shareholders. When the CEO and other bigshots hold large portions of the voting stock, than the board and management become one in the same. If you are uncomfortable with being the small owner with no say, don't invest in these companies. It isn't hard to find out the share of the company controlled by management. Note that most investors WANT their management to have a STRONG interest in owning the stock, normally having ownership requirements.
We have less freedom, because the government has asserted power. We have brainwashing, because our school system has stopped teaching anything. People think less because we put our kids in front of the television instead of books.
The unwashed masses were always undereducated and swung by demagaugery. It is only now that the television has put them in charge of the country. When we got direct election of senators and the primary system, we wanted to take control from the power brokers that ran the country. Terrific, we took power from professionals and gave it to amateurs, and assumed that nobody would figure out how to control the amateurs?
Those pushing for more democracy should consider replacing medical accreditation with a thumbs up/thumbs down vote at the local pub... That dumbs down the country.
Most intellectual property (copyright) companies would like to see Gnutella die... most companies couldn't give a rats ass about Gnutella. Even companies that deal in intellectual property don't give a damn.
Software companies have had easy piracy to deal with for years, Gnutella and ilk aren't their problem.
Movie producers are probably okay. They survived without money from video rentals before and will again if need be. As long as they can provide a compelling experience in the theater, they will be fine. The VCR gave them additional revenue. If they lose it, they'll come up with another one. Bitch all you want about the MPAA, they're much better behaved than the RIAA. The DVD region encoding annoys me (I still haven't bought a DVD player), but it isn't as bad as the RIAA's actions towards artists.
However, I don't understand when Slashdot went communist. I've only been a user for about two years, but this has really gotten weird over the past 6-12 months. Corporations aren't evil. Some of the large companies, where the shareholders and boards are too separated and management isn't overseen, may have done some bad things. But you guys treat all corporations as these evil entities. If you want to criticize multinationals, pick some out and go, many are disgusting. But lashing out at all corporations are childish. This article is attacking the top 50-200 companies... They aren't even hitting the Fortune 500/Global 2000 range. What about us small companies? Are we all evil too? The 5 person Linux consulting shop, are they doing the devil's work? Lash out at irresponsible multinations, not all corporations.
Now, the comparison of corporations to countries (sales vs. GDP) isn't fair. GDP measures value added. Sales measures value. Value added isn't necessarily profit, but it is the gross margin of sorts. If I buy lumber for $100, and turn it into $200 desks, I contribute $100 to the GDP, but $200 to my sales. This disparity helps get their "scary" figure of 51 corporations being larger than the countries... I'd guess that with fair numbers, the number of companies drops to 20 or so in the top 100. With less than 200 (last I checked) nations recognized by the UN, large multinationals participating isn't so strange.
Additional example of how to lie with statistics... 6. Between 1983 and 1999, the profits of the Top 200 firms grew 362.4 percent, while the number of people they employ grew by only 14.4 percent.
Well, that is a useless statistic, how many companies were in the top 200 both times?
Think about it, darwinian selection allows us to pick the top 200 companies now and compare it to the top 200 from 20 years ago. The companies that make more money per man-hour rise up, those that make less sink. Obviously the top 200 will be more efficient than 20 years ago. Compare the same companies. Also, IT reduces layers of management, so companies are flatter now. The top 200 companies are smaller for the same amount of productivity. That's been the goal, reduce costs. Those people get redeployed through the economy. We create more widgets/person, and consumers benefit. Our unemployment number is less than 5%, that isn't massive people thrown out of work. Those losing jobs are finding new ones.
Also, it doesn't mention if 362.4% is in real dollars or not? Given that this is a anti-multinational piece, I would assume not. Keep in mind that if we assumed NO increased efficiency and no substitution of more effective, the firms would have increased about 250% just because of inflation. Factoring in the 14.4% employment increase that they refer to, and we are up to 285% increase. Given productivity of 1%/year (we've been at 2% for the past few years), we're over 300%.
So, based on raw size and productivity gains, we expected the top 200 firms to increase in the 300% to 305% range. When you consider the timing of these years, 1983 a recession year to 1999 a boom year, we also get more warped numbers. Profits would be way down in a recession depressed economy. You took a valley and a peak and measured the change. Let's put another 30% into the profit numbers to compensate... assuming 15% lower in recession or 15% higher in boom (in reality, I'd put the swing higher than that), we're up to a 335% increase.
I think that our ability to subsitute and pick and choose the top 200 firms explains the remaining 27.4%, in fact, I would suggest it explains more than that.
There are REAL problems with some of the multinationals. The ability of governments to interfere in the economy gives companies an incentive to lobby. There is a mess. However, let's not use bogus statistics to invent this nonsense. Let's be a little more reasonable.
The persuit of wealth is NOT evil. Being a bad person is evil. Do not confuse the two.
Alex
Which means a family of 4 has an average income of 140k. 35k is not pathetic at all, the fact that the USs wealth is so badly distributed is.
Not so. The GDP per capita of the US is roughly 35k.
"The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
I realise that this argument is subject to the criticism that the state is also a manifestation of the people. I would counter that companies are subject to more stringent examination than governments by dint of the market, and further, that the primary function of the firm is to generate wealth, whereas the primary function of the govenment is to redistribute wealth. I would rather that companies had more of the wealth than governments because thay might actually do something with it to improve the quality of life.
"The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
--
--
I like to watch.
I buy food and pay rent. I could hunt/gather my own food and build my own housing, but it would leave me with much less time to pursue my career. The extra time I can devote to my work improves my industry. The people that provide my food and shelter subscribe to the same model of society, and therefore we have argicultual scientists and architects (trained, skilled professionals) in addition to farmers and construction workers (less skilled, less trained professionals). These skilled people allow for improvements in my food (genetically modified, clean crops instead of dirty potatoes grown in gravel pits) and housing (high-rise aparments instead of shacks and tents). This is how things work in the Real World. It is what has allowed this country to become so extraordinarily wealthy.
Large corporations are made of PEOPLE. People who want to provide for themselves and their family. Being successful allows them to invest for their and their families' futures.
A government is made of people too. A government making laws that apply to corporations just breaks down to people limiting other people's power and influence. That is why corporate donations to political parties are protected as Free Speech under the Constitution of my country.
The funny thing is that though you are a poor and rather obvious troll, your drivel is not dissimilar to the heartfelt, empassioned pleas of many a Slashdotter reading this.
Kids...
--
--
I like to watch.
You can spell things out for people and they still won't care. The few people who do care are labeled as fanatics and are read about in the same media outlets that spelled out the injustice in the first place.
It is now impossible to fight this issue as a consumer since Wally World has put all of the Mom&Pop shops out of business already.
I had the opportunity to visit New Zealand for 4 months this year and their version of Wall-Mart (The Warehouse) is now where Wall-Mart was a few years back. Their Mom&Pop shops are at their wits end as the business of 50 years is about to be repossed by the bank. And the consumers see what they think is a bargain and leave their small town suppliers for inferior crap items sold by The Warehouse.
I will say though, Wall-Mart's stuff is a higher quality than the stuff I found in NZ's The Warehouse - EVERYTHING I bought there broke from the Body Glove wet-suit to the fillet knife for the fish I was catching.
They are a threat to free speech and must be silenced! - Andrea Chen
Fish! LipHo
Good enough for 2nd or 3rd place in the entire world, I wouldn't complain too much, it can get much worse.
The U.S. has more people in jail than an other country.
Likely only because some of the other countries kill them rather than putting them in jail.
The U.S. makes prisoners pay for there stay by working for companies like Nike, Planet Hollywood and Microsoft (ever wonder which wako shrink rapped your MS word box?).
Committing a crime should get you free room and board?
U.S. didn't abolish slavery, they just changed the rules and promoted some slaves. (Actually, this isn't fair to blame the U.S., other than letting the corperations run the country.)
They did abolish slavery.
OK, does ANYBODY know how we can changes this?
We don't have to, what you describe doesn't exist.
Yes they are. The good things the person has done are white, the bad things the person has done are black (or vice versa if you are offended). There you are, black and white, as long as you don't generalize everything.
I am proud to be a pHinn...
--
when everyone gives everything,
when everyone gives everything, then everyone everything will get
Just look outside and see how many people have bought cars which are more expensive/bigger than they need, and bought houses that are bigger than they need. It is obvious that these people care more about themselves living in larger houses and bigger cars than feeding a bunch of anonymous starving kids. Hell, plenty of people think that putting neon lights in their PC cases is more important than feeding a few starving kids.
Protests are nice, but money speaks the truth.
So, what is the difference between a government controlling all the regions resources and a coorporation? From the point of view of an average individual, they are just as likely to become a member of parliament as they are becoming a member of the board of directors of a large coorporation. On the positive side, disputes among coorporations do not lead to large scale bloodlusts (wars) as disputes amongst governments. Loyalties are less deadly when abandoned by coorporations, and the amount of cynicism coming from the powers that Be is much lower.
I look forward to the day when CNN hosts a debate amongst the CEO's of GM and WalMart to elect the next president.
Revolution = Evolution
Personally:
Foaming at the mouth? Yes.
Socialist? Ideally (not pragmatically)
Liberal? Not for social moires.
Communist? No.
Anti-capitalist? Hell Yes.
Pro-government? Ahahahaha No.
Anti-achievement? You could not be more wrong.
--Ryvar
Then again, I thought the bottleneck encountered with food in Africa has been distribution. We need to fix that problem at the same time we build the big ration factories.
Oh and could we please make food conditional on the use of birth control? Please, please, pretty please.
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
Generally the flow of things go down the gradient. Corporations have more, hungary people have less, the reasoning should be apparent.
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
Or I could be playing the social game with knowledge of how it scales.
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
On the scale of things that include either the corporations or multinations or darn near any large organization, if there isn't insane resolution, 5 person shops are more like a commune then a business. You're talking mom and pop.
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
I thought the issue in question was wheither to take most of the icing (or just more, if you like) off of their cakes and convert that into as much food as possible for the masses.
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, and CNN? Conservative? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!
That made my day. Im crying here. You do realize who Ted Turner is? Used to be married to Jane Fonda? You know, Hanoi Jane? You're too much. Really. CNN and CBS are the most liberal stations in the country. If you would have said FOX, I would have agreed. But CNN? LOLOLOL!!!
Derek
This was such a great article to put on Slashdot. Really shows the level of economic ignorance of too many readers here.
Great post, thank you.
Derek
Undefended premise: Greed (subset) Evil.
Defend it, or your entire argument falls down.
Tell me, are Unions evil, because they seek to maximize wages at any cost? Is your average worker evil, because he/she seeks to maximize his/her wages? Why?
Derek
Miss the point much, chump? Jane Fonda is a dyed in the wool card carrying liberal and so is Turner.
Derek
You made the assertion, the burden of proof lies on you. If you wish to be intellectually lazy, fine. But don't expect others to not call you on it.
All existing unions (the handful in the US which monopolize unionized labor) in the US are monopolistic. Your statement belies a lack of experience with unions, and the effects of crossing a picket - even if you are non-union.
Now, tell me. What is greed? At what point does self interest become greed? Dictionary.com throws out this handy definition:
greed:An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth
What is excessive? What is the limits of one's needs or desert? How do we quantify greed, so that we may be able to tell when self interest becomes evil? Well, what does one "need" as a baseline?
1. rent - $500/mo
2. vehicle - $250/m0
3. ins - 150/mo
4. food - 150/mo
5. utilities - 100/mo
6. gas - 60/mo
7. total = 1210/mo - adjust for regional col
14520/yr.
So, anything over $14 grand a year is pure greed, adjusted for taxation and regional cost of living, of course. Add extra for children. One certainly doesn't need any more than housing, food, a new vehicle and electricity and water. Anything more than minimal social fair share and you're maximizing your wages at the cost of your fellow workers. After all, your surplus wages could do so much more for those less fortunate, who don't make their minimal share, right? That is social justice. But I hear you objecting already.
Is a CEO who makes millions of dollars a year, for successfully managing a company with a budget measured in billions and a payroll measured in tens of thousands, getting more than he deserves? Is it more than he needs? Surely more than he needs. But then again, as I have attempted to show above, need is a relative term. And a very bad metric for judging others, because there is ALWAYS someone worse off than you.
Am I greedy, because I make more than a dishwasher? Is the dishwasher greedy, because he has everything he needs, but desires to make as much as I do?
Where is your quantification of Greed? You'll find it to be an indefensible position.
Derek
Natural selection. Get used to it
(1) specialize and become more service oriented
That's because most 'intellectuals' (on the left and right) are too busy lying to each other and trying to brainwash each other.
" How else could ...(people disagree with _ME_!)"
-sigh- if people don't follow your ideas then they've been brainwashed and lied to? They couldn't POSSIBLY have come to a different legitimate conclusion.
apparently, you didn't read my footnote.
(1) specialize and become more service oriented
offer products walmart doesn't carry. Offer the knowledge of how the products work and how to use them. Offer parts to obscure products. Offer a repair service. Sell over the internet. Offer delivery. Make sure you have a noticable sign and your building doesn't look condemned. Advertise! People need to know your business exists and where it is. Specifically advertise products that walmart doesn't have and dont advertise products that you know walmart willl have for half your price.
Some mom & pop shops have a 'pay up and get outta my store' attitude because they've known that their customers have no where else to go. That will have to change when walmart comes.
It is also important that as many as possible downtown business adapt because a cluster of stores will increase walk in business. Many business owners who don't stick their head in the sand when walmart comes to town do succeed.
On the other hand, perhaps we are coming to an end of small businesses? Eventually even speciality businesses will, thanks to the internet, expand/consolidate in to franchises/ corporations in order to compete with other speciality businesses.
This is rather like saying someone was the most liberal member of the inquisition.
All major media outlets will always be conservative in outlook. They are either run by people with lots of money (who clearly want things to stay as they are as they have been served so well) or governments (run by politicians who want things to stay as they have been served to well).
Perhaps the furthest from these too models is the BBC with it's arms-length relationship to government. Even there you will rarely hear basic assumptions of the status quo being questioned.
_O_
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
...that less than 6% of the USA population earn more than $65K a year, and that less than 2% of the USA population control over 40% of the wealth...
is this true?
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html
Which features the drug war from a truly conservative point of view.
...note that the prime movers in keeping drugs illegal are:
1) the religious whackos (who don't want us to see God on our own time);
2) The corporations (it was business owners in southern california that originally outlawed marijuana; primarly because Mexican labor was "difficult to control" while high.
3) the police state, which expends massive amounts of money in and out of the USA attempting to stop illicit drugs, then bills the taxpayer accordingly;
4) the countries producing illegal drugs, since the black market allows them to create a bindle of powder for $0.25 and sell it to the end user for $100, but only if it's kept illegal.
Try to realize that the Corporate point of view is not republican, democrat, liberal or conservative.
Corporations are legally bound to put shareholder profits ahead of quality or value to the end user/buyer, which is devastating to the free market.
George Orwell was right, we now live in a dystopia where Corporations control the media and are brainwashing us into thinking things are getting better, when we clearly have fewer rights and liberties than our parents/grandparents, and less choice.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Which is one reason I have yet to invest my money in the sharemarket. I have to admit that discovering that a friend owned lots of shares in one of the evil corporations (say monsanto) would affect the way I percieved them.
However it is not just the fault of the shareholders, but also the law. I hear stories of floating a new sharemarket, one where the legal responsibility of the company is not just the profit, but environmental and community concerns as well.
I would consider investing in such a market (even if the dividends are slightly lower).
Also, by "regular people" I presume you're talking about the tiny minority of the people on this planet who consume the vast majority of the resources and create the vast majority of waste and pollution.
(yep, that'd be me)
Which is the more immoral? The businessman who pays the bribe, or the politician who makes the bribe necessary?
Thats easy, both are equally guilty, just of different crimes, one making the bribe and the other recieving it, Which makes them both equal in thier moral corruption.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Come on, this sounds pretty blatant...
This "tuxpenguin" doesn't sound like the most astute of guys. The PDF clearly mentions that it was made by the Institute of Policy Studies. What's that nonsense about "I don't know where it came from"?
Well, in any case it sounds like the IPS, which as has been pointed out already is a leftist think-tank out of DC, has wised up to how to get ./ers to read anything -- present it as some kind of a so-called "secret document" distributed (possibly) on a P2P network. I'd expect a little more street cred on this forum, but evidently we're all begging to be "had" by that sort of tactic.
Also a little odd is that M$ is nowhere to be seen, as several have pointed out.
My sig is too lon
Uhhh... we'd own or work for small- to mid-size businesses. You know, those "mom and pop" shops that get invariably forced out of business by "loss-leaders" like Wal-Mart, Target, and Super-Hyper-Mega-Triskadeka-K-Mart.
>:^D
This is the quintessential lesson in ignorant bliss as some sort of intellectual superiority. It's spreading like wildfire in the kids. They are so used to large "multinationals" running every aspect of their waking life that they don't know or care that their mother or father used to go to corner drug stores, local hardware stores, and then took a trip to the boutique for their clothes shopping. Now they go to Wal-Mart for everything. They go to a local mall owned, run and managed by a corporation a thousand miles away (or even overseas) that own way more malls in more suburbs across America than you CARE to think. They listen to music published by a Japanese conglomerate that makes their CD player, makes the movies that they watch (along with the player they watch it on), and controls the cable infrastructure that pipes cable to their television (which was probably made by an affiliate of said parent corp).
So what do the kids do? They set each other on fire and suplex each other on top of car hoods.
"Well DUH," you say. "Kids have always fallen for glitzy toys and been oblivious to the origin of their food. Big shit." While that be true, the companies that used to pander to these kids used to be separate entities. More and more, though, these companies are working in conjunction or, worse yet, are part of a larger parent. Sure, you can buy the cheaper no-name brand, but name 5 people in your life who do support the smaller, struggling company. The cult of the brand, if there is such a thing, has invaded us so much that we cannot even resist anymore. Generic doesn't cut it anymore. Why? Because it isn't cool. Value isn't sexy. And, though we are in a semi-stable economy, if it does falter, we're still going to buy big BRAND because that's what we will be programmed to do. Period.
"No shit, so go with the flow. Succumb to the raw power and brute force of the brand, pick your favorite, and let it define you." Sure, I will. We all will. Indifference is what makes all of us succumb.
For instance, why do you work for a 5-man Linux shop? Why Linux? Why not Microsoft? If Microsoft is just a harmless corporation, why not become a Microsoft Solutions Provider? They make way more mint than a linux shop by a WIDE margin currently. Simple, you made a value judgment. You made a preference. But, what if you couldn't make a choice about your toothpaste? What if Frito-Lay's made EVERY SINGLE POTATO CHIP in the world and then charged big cheez (pun intended) for it? Who do you turn to for your cholesterol bombardment? Oops, there's no one left. Get it?
Let corporations get big, and watch them swell, commingle, merge, and never split. Standard Oil was split because it had a monopoly on oil, fueling stations, the wells, and the transport rails that carried it. They controlled every aspect and controlled prices at Rockefeller's will. They were split in pieces. Now they are forming again, nearly 100 years later. BP merges with Amoco. Exxon merges with Mobil. Chevron merges with Texaco. The only difference here? With the lone exception of BP, these companies were ALL part of the Standard Oil split of 1911. They are forming again. But it's been so long, they seem like separate entities.
But, whatever, right?
>:^D
Thanks for unwittingly agreeing with my post.
Oh, BTW, the Industrial Revolution was brought on by small, smart cottage industries who innovated. Big corporations of today only market products better than the original inventor. Fancy that, Lord of the Sarcasm.
Interesting, where are these numbers? If you make a claim like this, which is against 'common wisdom' you better show us some proof. And you are aware of the fact that the prison population in European countries isn't all white either? In the Netherlands 45% of the current prison population was born in the Netherlands. That should be an indication.
So far I haven't seen any official US crime stats, show us some. But even if your numbers are right then you are still blaming some of the poorest and least influential people in your country for some of it's biggest problems. That makes no sense.
--
Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
Remember criminals are not born that way, a government creates criminals because it thinks it is the best way to eradicate certain behavior. Sometimes this is a wise decision and sometimes there are better alternatives.
--
Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
Preface: IAAL (Libertarian)
There are several things that disturb me about this report, but I am particularly disturbed by its falacious logic. Many of the issues raised seem unrelated and should be examined seperately.
The ascendancy of international business: it is my opinion that we would not have the current situation without collusion by world governments. Though many people feel that libertarians support big business vis-a-vis their advocacy of limited government regulation, its just the opposite in some cases. It is my opinion that the current situation has arisen as a result of government intervention in the economy. To quote the report:
"Of the U.S. corporations on the list, 44 did not pay the full standard 35 percent federal corporate tax rate during the period 1996-1998. Seven of the firms actually paid less than zero in
federal income taxes in 1998 (because of rebates). These include: Texaco, Chevron, PepsiCo, Enron, Worldcom, McKesson and the world's biggest corporation--General Motors."
Obviously, these companies have clout, and they get what they want. Whatever the case may be today, they achieved their current status with the help of a lot of governments, especially that of the US. Tax breaks, foreign policy decisions and US neocolonialism have helped big business become what it is today. More government regulation hardly seems to be the answer; more like reform corporate law to limit the US government's ability to help corporations get what they want.
Comparison to GDP: GDP is defined, roughly, as the total value of goods and services produced by a nation within that nation. These companies are part of countries' economies and contribute -- to a greater or lesser extent -- to the GDPs of a lot of countries. They are not seperable concepts.
When IPS says "General Motors is now bigger than Denmark", I would have to say, "So what?" Their report also says that less than 20% of US companies' sales are made outside of the US. Isn't it more meaningful, then, to compare GM's income to the US GDP overall and -- seperately -- look at the per capita US GDP vs. that of Denmark? Denmark is not that big a country. Its population is far smaller than that of the US (july 2000 est. population 5,336,394); I'm sure the GDP of Monaco is smaller than the income of an awful lot of companies, but this is meaningless because Monaco has a population of about 30,000!
This report makes some interesting points, but I for one, don't think it does so very well. Take this paragraph, for instance:
"Still, Americans may be less concerned about the growing gap between profits and employees
because of the country's record low unemployment rate. What is often ignored in the mainstream
media is the fact that unemployment problems remain prevalent elsewhere in the world...Joblessness around the world hurts the United States because it reduces the capacity of consumers in other countries to purchase U.S. products..."
What was this report about again? It's supposedly bad that big companies are making more profits utilizing fewer employees, and the reason that Americans should be concerned is...because that makes people in other countries less able to buy our goods? Something seems circular here...
Yeah, maybe big US corporations don't like this report, but it's conclusions are mostly of the scare tactic variety. Still, the quality (or lack thereof) of IPS's report should not be construed as an endorsement of big business worldwide practices. I, too, feel that businesses wield too much political and societal influence. I just don't think IPS has any answers.
Phil
We're wanted men. I have the death sentence in 12 systems!
The part that scared me, was that the top 200 had more money then the world's govt. combined. Makes the notion of big business influencing govt. much more pleusable.
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
Wow. Just like in 1984 by George Orwell.
Probably obvious to any who read this post, but in the novel 1984 there were 3 big powers (Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia) in control of everything. They seemed to be happy to pretend to be at war over petty squabbles while quietly maintaining the status quo.
-- Judas96
"...don't take a nerf bat to a knife fight." - Joe Rogan, said on News Radio
Every time a Walmart opens in middle America it causes massive unemployement amongst the ma & pa shops in main street......to every job creat by Walmart, that's at least 4 jobs lost elseware.
Look at all the old towns, where the central shopping districts look like ghost towns, since Walmart opened down the road.
Your logic is somewhat contradictory. It doesn't help that the article is misleading (see other posts here that discuss statistical anomalies).
Questions you should be asking instead: How many of the 200 companies on the 1999 list were on the 1983 list? How many of the 200 companies on the 1999 list were founded after 1983? How many of the 200 companies on the 1983 list filed for bankruptcy prior to 1999? Look at similar results for the top 10 or top 50 companies, you will see a great deal of movement (both up and down).
If you follow business (I doubt that most /.ers actually read the wsj or business week or something similar...), you'll realize that the "small, agile companies" really do rule. The problem is that when small companies succeed, they become big!! This is why I don't understand what all of the anti-corporatism is about. You people don't have a problem with corporations, you have a problem with concentration of power and wealth. A corporation is simply a legal tool to make it easier for individuals to do business with each other. My plumber is a corporation. Is he evil?? I don't think so. Would the entity who takes care of my plumbing be evil if it was a multinational corporation with $250b in sales? Not necessarily.
-bluebomber
The Daily Build
can you blame Ma and Pa Shareholder and their 50 shares of WeEatTheWorldUpAndSpreadMisery, Inc.? No, you can't... so who is to blame? could it be that the very idea of a publicly held corporation with shares for sale on a stock market can be the thing that is to blame? could it be that a stock market itself gives corporations a license to do whatever is necessary to maximize profits? could it be that being able to sell shares of a company therefore gives that company the right to steal/rape/pillage in the name of the public, i.e., their shareholders? to quote Steve Martin, "Naaaaaaaaaaaw!" (Goodnight, Chet... Goodnight, David)
As soon as you stop insisting that there is a difference between corporations and government you'll realize that this isn't such a big deal.
Yet again the myth of the liberal media surfaces its ugly head. If you don't want a liberal view of the world, watch TV. There you'll just get a corporate view.
Noam Chomsky said something similar: "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
I wasn't the original poster, but for me It's not forcing convicts to work that I have a problem with but forcing convicts to work for Nike. Or anyone else. If they work for the state (or at least for some public good rather than private profit), fine. If they work to pay for their keep, fine.
Pacific Ocean will work, just a little north of Malibu would be just fine. Thanks.
You can have that little plot next to the waste facility.
There are a lot of posts smashing Slashdot as being extremely left-wing or even communist. The fact remains that slashdot reflects the people who read it. Leftist stories are listed because those who like the articles submit them. If you want more articles that reflect your views, contribute them. I have a hard time believing that there's a conspiracy among Slashdot editors to politically censor.
Seriously.
"While playing around with GNutella the other day, I came across this PDF document (HTML Here)"
That's like posting... "I was walking down the street, and this dude said he was Jesus and the end is near!"
Taking some neo-communist FUD as face value is just plain dumb. That pdf is one of the more poorly done pieces of propaganda that I've ever seen...
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
The universe itself looks to be fairly infinite.
It isn't. You're confusing "infinite" with "unbounded". If you were a small two-dimensional being living on the surface of a large sphere, you'd conclude that your "universe" has no edge; but it would be wrong to say it had an infinite area.
Sorry to be nitpicky, but as soon as someone said "no infinite resources", I knew someone was going to retort "infinite universe".
My bad. As I stated before, "as soon as someone said 'no infinite resources', I knew someone was going to retort 'infinite universe'." My zeal to pounce on this minor quibble overcame my basic reading skills (I now see the words "looks to be" in front of "infinite"). I apologize. The subtler aspects of Economics continue to elude me, and I wanted to feel like I could contribute somehow (no life, I know). I hope you don't mind a follow-up question.
You assume the universe is closed. ... Latest evidence is for an open universe,...
It was my (amateur) understanding that the closed vs. open debate revolved around whether the universe will eventually collapse upon itself or expand forever, respectively. I understand the latter suggests that the universe will have infinite volume eventually (after a literal eternity, I assume), but it's still finite today, isn't it? Or is this yet another subject that has managed to elude me?
Again, I'm sorry I jumped the gun.
I thought the small, agile, companies were going to rule in this era of increasing change ?
What went wrong ?
Some of those stats explain part of it; companies that are countries in all but name (you are now entering Walmartland). They have the size to weather a few years of storms, and the size to gobble up any smaller player they want.
The smaller companies can nibble around the edges, but seldom do they want to take on a massive company head on - potential agility counts for nothing when you've a rampaging elephant bearing down on you and you've been hamstrung by their rules and regs.
However, at heart those companies are just people. If you want to change the way the company acts, change the way the people act. If its socially unacceptable to drink and drive, make it socially unacceptable to profit from others misery, to act like sheep rather than citizens in the company setting.
In short, how worried are you really ?
By keeping this sort of capital out of the hands of the government it keeps more power in the hands of people.. be they the CEO's of multinational corporations or in my savings account in Seattle.
The people...riiiiight. Here's a shocking idea: why not let the government have just a little bit of that and use it to, oh, I don't know, make sure every American citizen has access to affordable healthcare? Is an endeavor somehow immoral if someone (not "the people") can't line their pockets while doing it? Do these CEOs' not revolve in and out of govenment? Do they surrender (not transfer) their holdings when they become a legislator, lobbyist, or trade advisor? As for the compulsory "communism" crack, no one's talking about the State assuming ownership of the means of production, (which is the hallmark of Communism.) What they might be thinking of is a society that allows private companies to own the means of production, but tempers their natural proclivity towards greed by making sure that the effects of their profit-taking are mollified.
--
Freeper Logic
Why should we temper people's drive to excellence?
Who are you to "temper" my achievement levels?
In the name of what? Please answer these very basic questions.
If your drive to "excellence" or your level of achievement is going to contribute to the next Great Depression, do you really think others are going to sit still while your slurp the last bit of stew in the pot? If you're interested in it, go find some Depression-era photography by Dorothea Lange or Walker Evans. It's...depressing. Or, you can go back to your Ayn Rand novels.
--
Freeper Logic
the State assuming ownership of the means of production, (which is the hallmark of Communism.)
actually this is a hallmark of Socalism, but Americans have a skewed view of communism because of that damned cold war. (which really got messed up when they were suddenly our friends, go figure)
Yeah. If it's Tuesday, the enemy is Eurasia, not Eastasia.
OK, if it's socialism (as you say) how is it that some advanced industrial economies (take Germany, for example) have giants like Daimler-Benz, Siemens, BASF, Deutsche Bank, etc, and still manage to provide for more of the basic needs of their populace than we do, with better education to boot? I bet their executives have enough caviar to make it to the edge of the cracker under the current arrangement. Do ours not?
Anywho, in a real communist state, the people figure it out that both coporations and governement are bad and break up both accordingly. Communist states attempt to force this change on the populace with varying results(china's doing pretty well, North Korea is in the toliet, again, go figure)
NK is in the toilet because NK is a toilet. So is Burma/Myanmar, but they're a military dictatorship, so we'll ignore them, eh? China is accepting some foreign investment, and is about to join the WTO. The PLA actually runs a number of joint ventures with startup tech/aerospace type firms, but they retain firm control. Additionally there is a good deal of entrepreneurship going on. What China wants is a one-party quasi-free market economy without all the mess of multi-party politics and activist causes. Does this sound anything like where the US is headed? Aside from hotbutton emotionally-charged issues like abortion, the Reps and Dems are looking more and more like each other on economic policy every day. Instead of locking activists up, we'll just deny them access to media and generally ignore them. Not as bloody, but the end result is the same: maximum profit, minimum dissent.
And I believe (and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one) that people ARE GREEDY . People follow the path of least resistance, and following the path of resistance is what makes a river crooked. blah blah blah get over yourselves,
Everyone knows greed is a powerful motivator. If the US Army Corps of Engineers can straighten a real river, why can't we even try to straighten a socioeconomic river? The one we have now is the best place to go if you want to see money flow uphill.
--
Freeper Logic
For those who were there, remember the protests of Quebec, Prague, Seattle, etc. There were the little people trying to gget their voices heard.
I was there - Ill also be going to Washington this fall for the IMF/ World Bank summit. http://www.50years.org/s28/call.html
Hope to see you there!
"HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH - Your right, they are just worthless idiots.... they cant even feed themselves, it couldnt possibly help to give them any aid in distributing/creating wealth hehheheheheahhahah lets go to the mall." *slaps pal on the back*
"I mean really they stand in front of massive piles of food, unable to walk up and eat it because they are lazy and their government beurocracy prevents it! I mean really - if they cannot simply walk up and take a bag of rice home to feed themselves, instead of starving, why should we share with them! Wow - you are so right man. Now, if they would just learn to apply some good ol' fashion American capitalism then they would learn that taking for-oneself and forsaking your community actually gives *MORE* food to those without any money... silly brown-skinned twits. They arent even Catholics! Thehehheheh where did I leave my Oakley Sunglasses...?"
Although this is an interesting read,
I would be interested to see the actual data
and methods before drawing any conclusions.
--
Check out crippl3.net.
Booyah
1) Countries, like businesses, are not homogeneous. All nations, like companies, are wide ranges in size. One fact they mention is that the 200 largest corporations are larger than all but the 10 largest economies in the world. That's great, except that the 10 largest economies in the world constitute 2/3 of the world's population. If we extend the list to the top 12 economies we get Mexico and Russia, which make the percent of the world's population even greater.
To illustrate the non-homogeneity of nations, consider how many of the smallest countries it would take to equal the populations of India and China.
http://www.polisci.com/almanac/economy/fifty.htm
2) They are comparing the GDP of nations to sales of corporations. What is the majority of GDP made up of? Corporate revenue. It's a roundabout way of saying that large companies are bigger than smaller companies and rich nations are richer than poor nations.
3) They fail to mention the number of shareholders that own and control the top 200 companies. Using a small number such as 200 creates the illusion of a boogeyman when saying there are millions of individual shareholders which own stock directly or through pension plans and mutual funds doesn't sound as scary. Granted, the ownership isn't distributed equaly across the world's population, but it still isn't lopsided as they try to make it appear.
4) The Top 200s' combined sales are 18 times the size of the combined annual income of the 1.2 billion people (24 percent of the total world population) living in "severe" poverty. The implication here is that they are causing poverty. If Microsoft and GM disappeared tomorrow, would that benefit those who are poor? Yes. The poor are poor. Large companies are located in rich nations (as they mention). This is a roundabout way of saying that rich nations are richer than poor nations. Using corporations to illustrate the point isn't necessary and is done only to make a political statement.
5) Of the U.S. corporations on the list, 44 did not pay the full standard 35 percent federal corpo-rate tax rate during the period 1996-1998. Seven of the firms actually paid less than zero in federal income taxes in 1998 (because of rebates). These include: Texaco, Chevron, PepsiCo, Enron, Worldcom, McKesson and the world's biggest corporation--General Motors. Yes. That is because most of those companies have loses in some years which offset profits from previous years. They only used a 2 year window. If you take a loss you don't pay taxes. If you make a profit, you may apply losses from previous years. You are only taxed on profit, not revenue. Also, distributed profits are taxed when they are passed on to shareholders. Also, note the type of companies listed. Most of them are in industries that require very large capital investments.
Other explanations can be provided for each point. I'm not saying that there aren't valid points to be made here, but their use of stats and facts is very suspect. It seems that their whole argument can boil down to: Corporations are bad.
Whenever you see stuff like this from anyone with a political ax to grind (from any side of the fence), read it carefully and do the math yourself.
The European Union is a signatory of the GATT and WTO agreements on international trade, and does not have the right to simply do business with whomever they please. Denying a country trade because of its TAX laws is a non-tariff trade barrier that is not allowed under GATT.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
versus the leftist think tanks that merely parrot the opinions of their sponsors.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
You're right, voting with your wallet is hard. Sometimes really hard. Why should you expect it to be easy?
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
I absolutely agree, the readership (or at least those who contribute) seem to lean well to the left. Thanks for pointing it out.
</ot>
Hmm, maybe I'm just too right thinking, but isn't it RIGHT for the corporations to have more money than the government? The government isn't supposed to make money, it is supposed to govern -- and considering it's *our* money, they should do it more efficiently.
All it takes is $25 dollars a month put into an ira and you will have a million dollars overtime. If you put $1 dollar a day into an ira and 4 or 5 dollars into some stocks then you can probably reach your goals even quicker. People only making 30k a year in their late 20's can be millionairs by the time they are in their 50's. All you need to do is save money and not use credit cards and be responsible. You can make it big. IF the stock market explodes like it did during the last decade, you can make a fortune within a decade. However these things don't happen often. You should only put money into stocks for the long term. This way every 30 or 40 years when the market explodes you can be in on it.
That is what I call hard work. Most of the nations wealth is not inheriented like the upper classes of India or British society but is earned through, promotions, lots of luck, and good investments both personal and corporate. Bill Gates did a great investment in MS-dos. If Bill never decided to get into the operating system bussiness, he would have virtually no wealth today. It was through clever strategy. This is why conservatives love Bill Gates and support him. I agree he broke the law though and should be punished. But he was one smart cookie and Microssoft was pretty hopeless the first 5 years of existance. He did alot of manuevers like the purchase of dos just to keep Microsoft alive. After he did this, his company became gold.
It can happen but its long term and its alot of hard work. You should never invest in several mutual funds so if one gets burned you can be spared. When I talk about growth and wealth I refer to personal wealth. You can also be promoted through work or start a bussiness if you are more risk oriented. I personally prefer to benifiet off others work by investments. This form of bettering yourself and startig your own net worth is clearly American. However the access is now available to the world.
http://saveie6.com/
I think slashdot is becoming mroe and more left-wing socialist everyday. Corporations make money. So what?
That is the idea isn't it? LEts look with a different eye at this. Lets analyise the reports favorite enemy. Wallmart.
Look at how much Wallmart actually employ's in the report? You will see that Wallmart has over a MILLION WORKERS. Now multiple a million times 25k for 25k/y salary. THats 25 billion a year not including the taxes for WALLMART! No wonder they hire them part-time and not offer medical benifeits. WAllmart would go broke considering they offer the lowest prices which equal less profits.
America is great because you have the opppurtunity to become rich through hard work, idea's, and investing smartly. Should corporations use sleezy legal tactics to squash compitetion? No. %99 of them don't. I have found no realy abuse by most corporations expect maybe Microsoft, RIAA, AOLTime-warner, and perhaps a few sleezy electric companies in Texas and Oklohoma who have good conenctions wiht some politicians in California. sigh. Other then those half dozen I can't think of any other companies abusing their power.
Its like all the crime statistics which show Americans think crime is going up when in actuality its going down. The reason is because of the media increases its coverage. Most slashdoters here keep reading anti corporate stories and anti napster stories and you think its us vs them.
Its only a few companies. No big deal. I support conservative capitalism and like our system. We have new jobs being created thanks to the great wealth and you can invest in some of these companies and also experience their wealth and happiness. Its not just the CEO's enjoying everything. Did you know wiht only 34k a yeay you can become a millionaire in only 20 years? You just need to invest. Alot of the average workers do not invest in anything and executives do and this is why the gap is getting bigger. You need to stop using credit cards and put down 25 a month towards investments. I hope to make smart finicial discions in my life and hope this great wealth can continue under a new consrvative pro-bussiness government. I think we should give medals to the CEO's of all these companies instead of bashing them as evil bastards out to destory the will of the people. Its almost communism when you attack all those who try to beniefit themselves for being different.
http://saveie6.com/
Committing a crime should get you free room and board?
No but government shouldn't institute policies where by it PROFITS from having more prisoners, all that does is encourage the creation of even more prisoners regardless of what crimes are actually being committed.
Actually, do many stocks these days still pay dividends? If not, then how can I invest in GM and share in the wealth?
And here I was going to comment that Slashdot has gone way too libertarian and the libertarians were drowning out the socialsts. Guess thats a great example of having a subjective viewpont for both of us.
A very large number of the stories that get posted here, and also a large number of the comments are from a fairly right wing libertarian agenda.
The thing is that slashdot has a fairly international audience and readership these days, and the plain fact is that most of the world does not accept the neo-liberal "the free market should do everything" approach that is common place in the US. What you are seeing is not the activity of the left, just some of the rest of the world.
Phil
mediocre high-school education
Whose fault is it if high-school education is mediocre? The students? Right... Why can't most people afford better education? Don't have money. But we have way enough resources to teach them and provide for them while they study. But no, all those resources belong to 2% of the populace who will never use them but like the power they get from controlling who will be able to.
No motivation? I don't know who in their right mind would be motivated by a slave life cleaning dishes and such.
And the worst in all this is that they find a way to consume more than earth can give while keeping everyone in shitty conditions. Posterity? Who gives a fuck what will be left for them?? I DO!!!
The goal of a capitalist economy is to maximize individual profit.
The goal of a communist economy is to provide for everyone.
State communism is an oxymoron. Capitalist democracy is an oxymoron.
State and capitalism need each other. Democracy and communism need each other.
This is not what democracy looks like.
Exactly!
Why do you think they preach individualist values? To keep people divided. They act like they are divided to enforce the feeling that they succeeded this way and that it's the way to your own success. But they keep the power by sticking together and keeping people in a state of competition. And no, I'm not suggesting we should give up individual freedom for collective power. I'm saying that collective power is the only way to protect individual freedom. Humans are SOCIAL animals. As such, an individual can only be free by developing free (equal to equal) relationships with other free individuals. Life is a paradox. Life's goal is to find happiness by harmonizing those paradoxes, i.e. by finding a balance between them.
They say you are free because you can make your own choices. And it's somewhat true. But what does freedom of choice mean if they decide what options you get to chose from? Nothing.
There is only one way: revolution.
Corruption isn't a hindrance to the system. It is the result of the way the system works. The only way to stop this is to abolish exploitation, and thus everything that creates it: government, capitalism, imperialism, ect.
Great. But what do we replace it with? Simple. Participative democracy as a political system (i.e. people voting not on who will decide for us but voting the decisions themselves. Everything that concerns only me is decided only by me. Everything that concerns everyone is decided by everyone.). The only way people can be liable to law under a democracy is if people wrote said law. Communism as an economic system. I know you've all heard communism is evil, but the evil they talked about as nothing to do with communism. It is about collective property. The goal of a communist economy is to provide for everyone.
Do your own research on this. You'll be surprised to see there are alternative to Big Business or Big Government control.
You might want to start by Anarchy and NEFAC. Sociology is the key, as you can't build a better world without understanding what is wrong with the current one and what can be done to prevent the same mistakes humans have been doing since the first societies.
"If there is hope, it lies in the proles." -George Orwell
Great, we are getting better productivity than ever. This point is suspiciously similar to the ones made by various unions in XIX century directed against industrial revolution (which included destruction of machines etc .. all in the name of workers)
The leftist opinion on this that you so cavalierly describe as ludditism is much more interesting. If productivity goes up, the benefits of that productivity should be equally shared. i.e., why not reduce the length of the work week (as they have in France) rather than laying off half the workers when productivity rises? The answer is that those who own the means of production benefit disproportionately from gains in productivity because they control them. Rising productivity itself isn't the problem, although it's not a good for its own sake no matter what your economics textbook tells you - the question is, who benefits when productivity rises? How can we guarantee that the benefits of rising productivity are distributed fairly?
Finally, if governmental legitimacy arises only from the consent of the governed, and corporations do the bulk of the "governing" these days, should't these organizations be under public control for the same reasons?
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
I mean really... I'm no huge fan of 'big money' or 'corporations' (*washes mouth out with soap*), but all this sort of wild finger-pointing and conspiracy theorizing is just too much for me to handle anymore. After living in Eugene, OR (HOME OF THE ANARCHISTS WHO RIOTED IN SEATTLE [err, i mean protested peacefully]) for a few years, this kind of thing always comes off as cliche and pretty uninteresting. Every single day, some group who banks on its own 'moral superiority' is protesting some overwhelming evil in the world, throwing around meaningless slogans like 'Poverty = Violence' and the like, demanding that factories be shut down and corporations (*washes mouth out with soap*) be disbanded, without even thinking about the people who work for said corporations (*washes mouth out with soap*) doing such conspiratorial things as taking phone calls or delivering mail, or, god forbid, MEMOS (!!!!), or the people who work in the factories to feed (with an ill-gotten corporate [*washes mouth out*] paycheck no less!!!) their family. They find trained mouths from Indonesia who, after escaping from rice-paddies to sweat shops to suburban America are right at home pointing the finger at all the abuses, now that theyre paid-speakers driving around in a nice Volvo, or maybe even a Mercedes. And of course there are abuses... it comes with the territory, the territory in question being 'humanity.' What on earth do they expect?
But from all of that... all the protests, all the finger-pointing, all the anger and (sometimes) righteous frustration, NO ONE has a real solution. NOT ONE person goes beyond the sloganism and the sign-waving. Or, if a solution does somehow make its way to the fore, it will be something so absolutely fantastic, or just vague, that theres no way in hell it can be implemented or even agreed upon. "Tear down the government!" "Stop the WTO!" "Support the Earth Liberation Front!!" etc. After awhile, it's just difficult to take seriously. How does one 'support' the Earth Liberation Front anyways? By giving them money? By helping them burn down buildings (which they admit to doing, by the way)? By being a mouthpiece for *THEIR* propoganda, instead of Nike's propoganda? Its all so mind-boggling. I'm getting confused.
I'm not claiming I have the answers either. Maybe if someone bothered to explain the problem coherently, without resorting to banal slogans, then someone could come up with a solution that just might have a chance of succeeding.
Changes can't happen instantly. Gradual change, gradual solutions will generally work best, because theyre not a violent shock to the system and the people who, for better or worse, rely on that system to feed themselves and their families.
Anyways, sorry for the rant. Hope you found something useful in all of that...
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
The rankings are based on Sales vs. Market Value (Price*Nr. of Shares) which are two very different measures of a company.
Microsoft had sales of $23bn and profits of $9bn. Their sales numbers are not in the top 100 but the Market looks at the profits, plus expected growth, and gives Microsoft a Mkt Cap of $400bn. Looking at sales vs. market cap is deceptive as Wal-Mart has sales of $166bn but, with grocery-chain like margins, has a profit of $5.3 billion and a MktCap of $231bn.
Combine that with the fact that we are comparing a company's yearly sales to the GDP of a country to determine which is bigger and the comparison gets more confusing. I would rather own a country, and its military *grin*, with $100bn/year GDP than own a low margin retail chain that had Sales if $100bn.
Is this me or seems like Slashdot seems to be completely dominated by leftists and liberals. When was a last time you saw any story presented from conservative point of view?
I haven't noticed one over the other, although I think a lot of people on here like to call themselves libertarians even though they act like liberals. In other words, the kind of libertarians that don't want the government controlling the internet, but don't mind new laws controlling spam, Microsoft's monopoly, etc.
"And like that
Does anybody take this argument seriously any more? The world produces more than enough food to go around, but incompetence, graft, and outright nefariousness -- all of them largely attributable to the actions of local and regional governments -- are responsible for the vast majority of starvation these days. Take a look at this week's Economist for just one example. There's a survey on India where they discuss how India produces more than enough food to feed all its people adequately, but grain sits rotting in stockpiles undistributed, and the distribution system is so bad that between 20 and 40 percent of output spoils on the way to market. You're talking about a country of more than 1 billion people that is perfectly capable of solving its hunger problem from a production standpoint, if only it could overcome inertia and bureaucratic ineptitude. What on earth would confiscating the profits of the five largest American companies do to address the fundamental systemic problems that underlie hunger? (Probably its biggest practical effect would be to screw over all the retirees and other folks in the U.S. who were relying on dividends so they could pay for their own food, rent, and medicine.)
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
I didn't say we couldn't possibly help or should be callous toward the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who are starving, I said that throwing a bunch of money at the problem will not FIX THE PROBLEM.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
I challenge you to back up that assertion. Only a few percent of people on the planet can possibly be living at a $35K/year or better level. Where does the magic money to bring the standard of living of the other 5.8 billion people on the planet up to that level come from?
I'm also curious as to how you conclude that "Earth has way enough resources" and then a few paragraphs later say "they find a way to consume more than earth can give". Sounds like a contradiction to me.
Whose fault is it if high-school education is mediocre?
Did I attempt to place blame? No. All I pointed out was that $35K does not make for a bad living, especially considering that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to make that kind of money.
all those resources belong to 2% of the populace who will never use them
What, Gates and everyone else who is megarich has taken all his money out of circulation and stashed it underneath his mattress where it will do no good? Uh, don't think so. That money is paying taxes, helping fund new companies that can generate even more wealth, going to charity, etc. A $40 million house may be excessive, but then again, you can be sure that a lot of people were employed in building it...
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
Pretty pathetic compared to what? The earnings of a college-educated techie with skills that are in demand? Come on, if you are a median American -- 100 IQ, mediocre high-school education, average level of motivation and no unusually valuable skills -- 35K is not that bad. It'll probably buy you a better lifestyle (at least in material terms) than your grandparents had, even if your grandparents were wealthy by the standards of the times. It'll certainly buy you a better lifestyle than enjoyed by the vast majority of people on the planet.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
I work for a small business. I personally like small business and whenever possible patronize them (books stores in particular). The point is, if Wal-Marts, Best Buy's, Barnes&Nobles, etc DIDN'T work, they wouldn't be around. People like these stores. At least the majority of people. If people DIDN'T like them, then they wouldn't make any money and would be forced out of business.
Scott
I don't know any actual statistics on this, so I don't know if your argument is correct or not.
My Pov, small businesses should be given as many breaks as possible.
The republican party is most usually for breaks for small businesses i believe you will find.
Scott
Yes a corporations goal is to make money. And it makes money by selling products and services. To make products and services it must employ employ people. To pay its workers and owners and maintain itself, it must make money. So yes, you are correct, a corporations goal is to make money.
WHO CARES IF A BUSINESS HAS MORALITY. You're absolutely kidding yourself if you try to apply morals to a business. You think Andover.net exists for the GOOD? You think Microsoft exists for EVIL. Your arguments of morality are misplaced, uniformed and puerile.
Yes, companies should be maintained by laws. And they are. And in your final and most ridiculous statement you say firstly that you can't "Vote" coprorations out. Actually yes you can. If you and other people don't like a corporation NO ONE IS MAKING YOU buy from them. NOT SO THE GOVERNMENT which you truly have no say in. And finally you state that "in the US where you do need wealth to have political influence". Well first, NO KIDDING. If you can show many any government in the history of the world where money doesn't equate power, i'll stand corrected. The US simply has the fact that it has been the most succesful and free government in the history of the world, while more socialistic governments (such as those in Europe) languish and gripe.
Sott
i live in the US, I like the US, I think the US is great. I don't particularly like the media, though it is improving with competition from amazingly popular networks such as Foxnews.
Scott
Is this me or seems like Slashdot seems to be completely dominated by leftists and liberals. When was a last time you saw any story presented from conservative point of view?
Do you have ANY concept how stupid this statement makes you appear? Slashdot is RIDDLED with "conversatives" who are ACTUALLY liberals. (Hey, if Unca Ronnie is your favorite president, then, guess what, you're a neo-liberal, dimwit.)
With the rare exception, this forum tilts so far to the right that Mussolini looks like a communist.
Like all spoiled children of America, you claim the moral highground because of your fat bank account--without any justification other than your own greed.
Really, that's off the topic, though. Simply, if you think the wind blows from the Left here, you are so far to the right that you wouldn't know a Left idea if it came up and bit you on your ass.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
you could have found the document (and lots of other interesting stuff) at the ips website, of course.. so what's the deal??
I'm looking forward to the day when the average 1000-person company is wealthier than our bloated federal government.
When I grow up, I want to execute subsidizes and other wealth-sucking programs.
What would Jenna Bush do?
Jenna Bush would fuck me like the lefty-socialists are trying to fuck America:
hard
Certainly the political contribution end of things, see OpenSecrets.org if they haven't mysteriously been taken offline by the men in black. Notice how corporate America hedges its bets, and often splits its contributions around 50-50 with the Dems and Reps.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
Each one of those "evil" corporations slashdot is so eager to condemn is actually owned by regular people, and they are creating wealth for average jacks and joes.
This also brings up another point of view: if I own a piece from a large corporation, that really do mean that I own it - it is my personal property, and I alone should be the judge of what I do with the things I own.
I you blame corporations, you blame their owners, cause the corps do what the owners want them to do - and that usually is creating huge piles of green, with what ever they got.
-km
Here and here.
This sig intentionally left blank.
Sorry for the post, but you have no contact info listed. SN, can you drop me an email? thx.
I adblock all animated gifs.
Blessed be the prime numbered slashdotters
Actually, the majority of the people at those events had a university education. Granted, an arts degree isn't exactly marketable skills, but still...
-MR
-Michael Roy Some people are like Slinkies. Not really useful, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down
For those who were there, remember the protests of Quebec, Prague, Seattle, etc. There were the little people trying to gget their voices heard. Remember, the profits of the five largest american companies FOR ONE YEAR would feed the starving in africa for decades.
-MR
-Michael Roy Some people are like Slinkies. Not really useful, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down
If You want inane conservative points of views try ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, etc... etc... or any other corperate owned "news" show. I'm sure you'll find exactly the sort of mind-numbing drivel you're used to, and agree with.
Who do I work for ? My Community. The Very people who are exploited every single day in the name of Money, who are told this is the 'acceptable' way of things. Now, Who do you work for?.. or better yet, -What- do you work for? The Peices of Paper Marked "Stock" ? And Who Filled your head with such nonsense?
Oh, come on. You mean the reason the US' per capita incarceration rate vastly exceeds that of, say, Canada, is because the Canadians are busily executing everyone in sight?
The reason that the US has so many people in prison is that the US is alone among industrialized countries in the extent to which it criminalizes victimless crimes such as personal use of marijuana.
Get the personal-use offenders out of jail and the US starts looking like anywhere else.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Frankly, I couldn't agree more. And I think the moderator who wastes his points on taking down this reply to an AC post is even more of a detriment to this community than I am.
Hi, I'm a pretentious cock who will make some gay comment about ignoring AC posts here.
I find it hard to imagine that there is a single one of the 51 companies mentioned that is not mostly, if not entirely, contained within the 49 nations mentioned. I've seen things like this before, and they always seem to be trying to yell, "Big bad globalized corporations are going to take over!!!" without even considering that the GDP of nations is made up of the equivalent "GDP" of these companies. Someone should wake these people up and help them realize that yes, corporations do bad things at times, but no, we can't just get rid of them. They serve a purpose too...
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
. . . I don't see the word "porn" anywhere. What on earth were you searching for?
~~~~~~~~~ "I must create my own system, or be enslav'd by another man's." William Blake, Jerusalem.
At least, that's what we're told. By CNN no less.
Bond movie? Heh, I haven't seen the movie you're talking about. I try to stay away from the mainstream media for the most part. I was thinking more along the lines of Desert Storm actually.
America is great because you have the opppurtunity [sic] to become rich through hard work
This point is often made, but it is untrue and should not be left unchallenged.
Hard work alone doesn't make an individual rich. If that were true, how come the descendents of slaves aren't running the US?
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
The U.S. has more people in jail than an other country.
The U.S. makes prisoners pay for there stay by working for companies like Nike, Planet Hollywood and Microsoft (ever wonder which wako shrink rapped your MS word box?).
U.S. didn't abolish slavery, they just changed the rules and promoted some slaves. (Actually, this isn't fair to blame the U.S., other than letting the corperations run the country.)
Where will you go today.....
OK, does ANYBODY know how we can changes this?
--
M0571y H@rml355.
I also think it was the Spanish-American war that was started over a reporter's hyping up an accident aboard a US ship as a deliberate attack by Cuba? (Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't remember it exactly).
I think a big reason the government let AOL/Time Warner merge was to create a mega-media outlet in cyberspace. Even a lot of us geeks are apart of it. How many of you subscribe to Cable RoadRunner? And how many average Joe's have simple old AOL? (Answer: about 30 million).
But it's not secret societies running the show, or even fully planning it. There is too much infighting between 'secret societies' cause everyone in them wants to reach the top. If you want to know more about how I think the world is being controlled, email me. Just my $.02 on the issue...
> "balanced reporting" that is required by law
Now there's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
here here! im as sick as you are of whiney babies who insist on giving governments the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being owned. the only thing that bothers me more than a person who votes for a politician, needless to say, is the politician they vote for. i am truly disturbed. i believe that the people who vote for such monstrosities of human kind get what they deserve when bills to clean arsenic from public drinking water are vetoed, while others that permit huge companies to drill in our wildlife reserves are rushed through without so much as being READ. to all the people who had the nerve to write the Top 200, keep up the good work. god knows this planet needs your help more than anyones. most people have no clue that this is really the way things are happening around us. to those who still want to debate the legitimacy of The Top 200: get a life, get a clue, and get a move on because you are IN MY WAY.
i say people think too much about things like this. its a realy simple topic: greed, the most basic of human emotions. so is violence, which is the only thing big companies and evil governments understand. we arent going to better our civilization by asking them politely to quit stealing from us.
let me tell you a story
of one big company
that printed and minted
all of our money
they had a real plan
to make it real easy
one bill for you
and two for the company
but the shiny new coins
and crisp cottong bills
have almost put an end
to what we have here
if i were in charge
hunger would be history
war? a boardgame...
pollution a memory
our senates a circus
and congress a gang
would you vote for me?
id change everything...
Be careful. Making outright assertions without proof because you were convinced by someone else's ideas and have taken them to be fact is dangerous. The amount of money changing hands does, in part, reflect qualitatively "what's going on" in the economy- that is to say it can be used as a proxy of total "welfare" or "happiness" or "utility," or whatever ethical benchmark you wish to use to judge whether or not we are becoming "better off" over time.
GDP is an approximate measure of the amount of production in an economy, including things such as computer hardware sales (which in some way accounts for the improvement that hardware brings to the lives of agents in the economy, though perhaps not accurately). The "standard of living" (or "welfare," etc.) for the average human is thought to increase with positive economic growth, which is defined as an increase in production over time. One reason we think GDP can be used as a proxy for improvement in the "standard of living" is that GDP equals income (there is discrepancy in the practical measurements of production and income, but they're small (order of 10^10 dollars) in relation to GDP (on the order of 10^12 dollars)), and people seem to have more "utility" (or "happiness," etc.) when they make more money. This is obviously not the whole story, and we do not yet have data that purports to measure things like spiritual fulfillment or mental enslavement. Would you like to help me construct the "enslavement index?" The equation could be something like:
#enslaved=totalTVsales + totalM$productsales + some average of the marketcaps of (say) the 10 largest corporations + some index representing the number of ludicrous laws and court cases that arise in a given year
Yes, in practice production is measured by accounting for "money changing hands." This is of course fraught with problems, such as the extreme and hackneyed example that takes the form: if we mow each other's lawn, GDP increases, but "real" production remains the same since each of us would have mowed his own lawn without pay anyway and that wouldn't have increased GDP. In practice, cases like this (of which there are probably no real life examples) contribute *much* less to GDP than actual productive activity represented by consumption of (and investment in) goods and services that contribute something new and presumably beneficial to the economic system. It is this productive activity that is believed to improve peoples lives, and it is measured better by GDP than by anything else we've used so far. We've only been collecting data since the late 1940's you know. Prior to that there was no GDP.
GDP isn't completely useless as a benchmark against which to compare economic activity over time to determine if things are "improving." It does reflect in large part "real" economic growth, and it is not simply a measure of how well we have learned to move money without actually producing anything new. GDP is not the whole story of improvement of course, it doesn't consider the income gap, psychological happiness, the rate of divorce, crime, unethical (but not illegal) business practices, unacceptable government policies, etc., but it is an important part of the picture that shouldn't be ignored simply because it is incomplete. If you have a better idea of how to measure economic improvement (or how to define it) please let me know. Until then we will keep using GDP to give us some idea of what is qualitatively going on. We started taking these data because we wanted to avoid another depression like the 1930's, and they have certainly helped us do that. Keep that in mind.
-Rene Ruiz
See you on the playa.
Small business employs more people and pays more taxes in the US than big business. However they get the short end of the stick on everything from OSHA regs to tax laws. The average small business cannot afford to put aside enough money to pay for adequate loobying to protect themselves.
"If there is nothing you are willing to die for, then you are not really alive." Myself
::As citizen movements the world over launch activities to counter aspects of economic globalization, the growing power of private corporations is becoming a central issue. ::
::...and replace it with what ? Until these people propose something better instead I think we are going to be better off with what we have now.::
::Is this me or seems like Slashdot seems to be completely dominated by leftists and liberals. When was a last time you saw any story presented from conservative point of view?::
/.!!
GUESS WHAT?
Some of us don't want to work for Darth Vader.
Some of us think "democracy" is a different word than "dollararchy".
Some of us think people, the Earth and gods-forbid even communities are more important than the rich 1%'s right to grow ever richer.
The proposed answers to these problems may not be addressed in this document, but those with brains still able to question and seek answers can look elsewhere, like adbusters.org, for more thoughts. Provided thinking doesn't hurt you like it so hurts corporations...
It's you. It's all of us.
We hear the "conservative" or "moneymoneymoney" propoganda every time we turn on The Box (all-corporate programming) or listen to The Pundits (speakers for corporate-run government), for starters.
Curse these Netizens for caring about PEOPLE! How dare they worship Life and Harmony instead of Riches and Phat Gear for the already ultra-wealthy! Let Nike run it's sweatshops! Let Monsanto force hundreds of thousands of foreign farmers to use their patented genetically-altered seed! Phuck the Populus; they're not imporant anymore!
I hear this argument all the time: The Industries are playing by "the rules", so who are we to tell them they can't?
Well, since the Civil War they've been pretty well having those rules written for them as they go along, for one thing.
For another, we're the People, dammit, we're supposedto be writing the rules , for the greatest benefit to all. But we're slacking. We haven't even gotten ticked off enough to revoke a corporate charter in decades. We've let them break or rewrite all the rules we came up with in the beginning--Respect the community. No owning stock in another corporation. No lying in your advertisements. And if you break a law, you're dissolved.
I say, spread this document everywhere. Because the sad fact is, we're not even to the point of DISCUSSING what the new rules should be yet; we're still waking people up to the fact that WHILE YOU WERE BUSY WATCHING TV, THE CORPORATIONS TOOK OVER YOUR GOVERNMENT. NOW THEY ARE RAPING YOUR PLANET AND MESSING WITH CULTURES ALL OVER THE WORLD. At least in my opinion, this is a situation the First World citizens, complacent as they've been made, are uniquely suited to step in on--perhaps they are the only people who might fix it. But as long as they're not hearing ANY voice but the Industries, it's hopeless. I'm thrilled to peices to see Slashdot helping shed some light on this atrocious situation.
Go
--S. Thustra
Hasta la victoria siempre! Revolution! :D
Well, seriously, though, this road will take us to corporate fascism.
--- Hajotkaa siihen, kapitalistit!
i'd say anarchy is the opposite of communism, but they keep getting mixed up. in anarchy, there's no antitrust law to break up microsoft, because there ARE no laws. everything is entropy, as physics intended!
--how long till the operators are jailed for anime-induced pedophelia and
{This was offtopic in another article - this time I'm on-target, so here's a reprint.}
What better way for 3 evil powers to keep that power - by creating the illusion that they are keeping each other in check.
AOL/TimeWarner (which owns CNN) will scold the government and Big Business. The government will scold Big Business and the media (for *ahem* sex and violence - which are polar opposites in a way, but demagogues like to put them together). As long as they appear to be fighting each other, the useful idiot on the street will be happy.
Big Business needs only to keep government regulation down to maximize profits, so they can buy the cars, homes, and drugs that they love so much and throw extravegant parties on special occasions. Also they need to send their kids to the right schools so they can attain power in various secret societies that will ensure they secure high positions like their daddies.
Gandi took many people with him on a pilgamrage to gather salt from the sea. He was imprisioned, others were beaten, imprisioned or killed because the salt, the sea and the shoreline "belonged" to the east india company. Don't tell me corperations can't be deadly, it's pedantric and false. The amount of cynicism from the powers that be is more than you can possibly imagine. That will be a really fucking sad day when CEO's get to pick presidents, It's bad enough that rupert murdock can push the editorial slant of his media empire far beond the "balanced reporting" that is required by law, if in the next election we are not even allowed to vote I'm leaving. As for who is a better stuard of the resorces of a reagon, well governments have a vested interest in making the resorces last longer than one fiscal quarter but who owns the salt of the sea?
>The average life expectancy in 1900 was 47 years. Today it is 77, and rising....
etc.
All these stats are good things.. I'd disagree with saying that capitalism created the benefits in people's lives that we see today vs 100 years ago.
Most, if not all, of the progress working people have seen was due to socialist, communist and anarchist workers fighting like hell for better wages, hours and conditions.
Like your 40 hour work week and living wages, weekends and holidays? Thank the labor movement.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Yep. If you can use and distribute existing resources more efficiently, you don't need to bring in as many new sources thereof. =)
--
--
Mmm... delicious white marbles...
If this can be accomplished, you'll see a much more pure form of capitalism at work--something much closer to a true free market.
--
--
Mmm... delicious white marbles...
> I alone should be the judge of what I do with the things I own.
That has obviously not been thought out. You own a car so that means you can drive it through the aqua-zoo at 70mph? You own a ball point pen so you can shove it into my neck when you want? If you own shares of a corporation you should treat them like owning a gun that has no safety-switch and can't be locked up. Lest you be responsible for driving toxins up the noses of our children, pouring mercury into our fisheries, and producing the Spice Girls.
Maybe instead of regulating corporations the gov't. should regulate shareholders.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
Finally someone who sees that the dems and reps are one in the same. Identical agenda! Wait! were there any other parties running in the last federal election? Not according to the mass media. Ah .. democracy *cough* in action.
As far as I can tell, Slashdot seems to represent pretty well the thinking of educated people in the US.
IPS is a leftist think tank in Washington.
Yes, one of the few. Most think tanks are right wing and merely parrot the opinions of their corporate sponsors.
Yes, and do you know where that pseudo-deregulation came from? It wasn't the customers that were asking for it; most customers were completely unaware of deregulation. It was the power companies themselves. They expected to be able to buy cheap wholesale electricity while still being able to charge way-above market rates for a few years. It didn't work out, but no great loss to them anyway, since they managed to get the profits they did make out of the state before going bankrupt.
Regulated or state owned power generation does not give you the cheapest power. What it gives you is long term predictability and stability. Exposing private customers and small businesses to the price volatility of the energy market to save a few bucks, as deregulation does, is a prime example of current economic stupidity. The kinds of economists who advocate this sort of thing are either incompetent, or they are simply being paid off.
The irony is, of course, that internal decision making in corporations is anything but based on free market principles. If IBM or GE don't think it is necessary to run their corporations like a free market internally to make efficient decisions, why do they scream bloody murder when the government tries to regulate market activities?
"someone needs to think of a NEW economic model that allows for personal advancement the way capitalism does"
Well, I am all for it but, for God's sake, don't destroy your old house before you have some other place ready.
"There is a desire among some people to see corporatism - not necessarily capitalism, mind you - burned down. "
Well, corporatism is an advanced form of capitalist.
"you should actually THINK about what people have to gain from suggesting such things. "
Indeed, what? I asked this question so many times it is not even funny anymore.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
Hehe, maybe they prefer much lower unemployment rates? ...)
You know some people actually do enjoy working and take pride in honestly earning their living as opposed to having other people do it for them ( make no mistake, there are no free lunches
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
"What they might be thinking of is a society that allows private companies to own the means of production, but tempers their natural proclivity towards greed by making sure that the effects of their profit-taking are mollified."
Why should we temper people's drive to excellence?
Who are you to "temper" my achievement levels?
In the name of what? Please answer these very basic questions.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
"except in the US where you do need wealth to have political influence"
Dude, you are kidding here right ?
Or should we talk about FAMOUS European-style corruption( specially Italy and France)?
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
Your entire post about conservative thought could be summarized, as "this stuff is boring so we will not read it." ...
Exciting and insightful is NOT the same thing.
Don't confuse them.
More often than not, these "boring" things are just what is in order
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
I do realize what sort of nick I am posting from ...
...
On the other hand, who cares ?
It is only a handel, just as meaningless as your Amoeba
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
Hey Dude, I lived under it for about 20 years.
Just like your friend Marx prescribed...
Of course, he missed couple of things here and there (human nature, economics) but nobody is perfect.
To summarize, call me if somebody comes up with perfect implementation of this utopian writings.
Having already lost 20 years of my life I won't settle for anything else.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
Corporations as such have no power. It is overgrown goverment that provides them with such.
A big difference.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
"Yes. So? What does this change? "
It changes a lot. Why should my country be punished because people in France and most of other countries in Europe enjoy paying large tax? This is exactly what they are proposing. Economical sanctions directed at nations with low tax.
Frankly, why should elected officials in Europe be even concerned about tax rates beyond their own borders?
"How about democracy? We don't need GM to tell us what to do."
Again, corporations have no power per se.
It is overgrown government that provides them with such. When you realize that, it changes your whole outlook at the issue.
Less power in government = less power to be bought.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
Where did I misquote him ?
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
This is the problem. Every time somebody tries to implement Socialism it ends up as some sort of tyrannical monstrosity.
I do believe Socialism is a very much utopian ideology impossible to implement in the real life.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
"Those tiny countries makes business solely because they don't tax any money and don't ask where it comes from and tell anyone about it. "
And what gives you right to deny them this business? You are free to change your economies to compete effectively and render these tax heavens irrelevant but you have no right to demand their demise just because you don't like them.
"If you dislike paying more taxes because of another country, try thinking how pleased you'd be to be poisoned by another country because this country thinks it's "almost safe enough to eat"."
You are not going to get poisoned. Please, be more serious here and rely on scientific data as opposed to hearsay.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
"Some of us don't want to work for Darth Vader. "
Nope, nothing will change except that you will simply work for a different "Darth Vader."
"but those with brains still able to question and seek answers can look elsewhere"
Sorry but your suggestion that opposing side lacks brain cells to decide for themselves is not helping your credibility.
"How dare they worship Life and Harmony instead of Riches and Phat Gear for the already ultra-wealthy! "
How dare you to deny me opportunity to worship Riches and Phat Gear instead of Life in Harmony?
"we're supposed to be writing the rules, for the greatest benefit to all. "
Sure we do. Or do you consider "we" only to include people who agree with your point of view?
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
"no right to deny them business except business with my economy. "
...
No, your country is trying to pas international law to force all members of these international organizations to deny them business.
"It's no more hearsay than global warming (despite what Bush and Texaco say)."
Oh so you have chosen to believe Al Gore?
Big deal
We all have our own little fetishes.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
I am sorry but there are as many ( if not more) experienced and wise scientis saying the very opposite thing.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
Sales vs. Workers While the sales of the Top 200 are the equivalent of 27.5% of world economic activity, these firms employ only a tiny fraction of the world's workers. In 1999, they employed a combined total of 22,682,166 workers, which is 0.78% of the world's workforce.
Great, we are getting better productivity than ever. This point is suspiciously similar to the ones made by various unions in XIX century directed against industrial revolution (which included destruction of machines etc
The organization attributes this decline in tax rates to the use of "tax havens" and intense competition among industrialized countries as they attempt to lure investment by offering lower taxes.
This is why France and EU want to punish countries with significantly lower tax rates. For obvious reasons they cannot get at US so for now they are after smaller countries.
As citizen movements the world over launch activities to counter aspects of economic globalization, the growing power of private corporations is becoming a central issue.
Is this me or seems like Slashdot seems to be completely dominated by leftists and liberals. When was a last time you saw any story presented from conservative point of view?
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
Despite this, I do not think that Rand would have necessarily agreed with your statement that money is what drives people to dream, innovate and what not. Not even work is necessarily driven by money. Some people, like teachers, certainly get more out of their work than money. I think Rand would have instead argued that freedom is what drives people to be better than they are.
Nonetheless, you are missing the point. Corporations driving hard to be profitable does not always equal money. For some, as corporations move production overseas, it equals unemployment, and that ain't money. For others, it opens up certain opportunities, i.e. working in a Nike factory as opposed to subsistence farming, but conditions there are horrible, and workers have to endure all manner of dehumanizing conduct simply to be allowed the priviledge of working there. In either case, you get the dead opposite of your live, work, dream schtick.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
shhh....don't tell anybody that... well it doesn't matter cause they can never shut down gnutella
-OR_BraveHeart "there's nothing certain in life except death and taxes"
I don't know....I don't like new format of nakednews....they used to have women strip down to nothing. Now all they do is start off naked, come on ladies...I want to be teased. Don't we all? :D
-OR_BraveHeart "there's nothing certain in life except death and taxes"
What is corporate facism. The funny point here is that all "lefties" are denoting that corporate overpower will lead to corporate facism.
;-)
In a (liberal, by definition)world where corporations overpower goverments by law, corporates can be facistic, but they do not have to!
By darvinian perspevtive, evolutionary that is, the most effective corporate systems would evolve from the liberal world. And I think that facistic corporations would not be productive as ppl. in them would be apalled by their jobs.
Why do 90% of IT projects fail their schedule?
Could we get better production with better spirit in the company?
--
Personally I prefer english sigs."Senkin kommaripelle"
In dream society, people could be given the ability to mod replies. In real life, it would be disaster.
What this means to you. As a Public relations master of "the Destined Central Secret Society" (hereafter DeCSS) I have to warn other members of American Secret Societies (hereafter A*S). Member who has publicly broken hes swear of secrecy of any members of A*S shal be punished by the authority of DeCSS with following. 1. You shall be forever rejected from the all memebers of A*S. 2. You shall lose all the social, maritial and business standing given you byt he authority of any A*S member. 3. You need to be level 3 initiate to know this horrible an frightening punishment. but let us say that you shall know the power of DeCSS.
In dream society, people could be given the ability to mod replies. In real life, it would be disaster.
Owning a piece of land will not make you free. It will tie you to the land. True freedom comes trough letting go of want. Want to own anything, to steal anything, to gain anything.
Nirvana.
In dream society, people could be given the ability to mod replies. In real life, it would be disaster.
I'm not sure why I'm choosing to enter the ring on this rather non-news article, but why not?
On the mysterious source of this document, including its statistics, it was produced by ips which is a weak liberal think tank, the conservatives have their own think tanks that put out equally farcical thought. In the US thinktanks are where failed academics, retired military personnel/spies, and corparate leaders go to die.
The statistics are clearly labeled as coming from fortune magazine. Oooh the big bad corporations didn't want me to see this, so they hid it inside of the magazine instead of printing it on the cover.
I agree with many of the posters that the statistics are misleading. Comparing sales to gdp (which is made up of sales) is comparing orange juice to oranges. How about market cap? The capitilization of a all the stocks listed on all stock exchanges vs. the individual members. Does this sound silly? It is.
However, in the end, money = power, and the article was successful in saying that corporations have a lot of it (money, power, whatever). Is this a bad thing?
I personally would say corporations are no better or worse than governments (or people for that matter). The primary directive of corporations is profit. The primary directive of governments depends on the government. Think about what governments have done. The difference lies in responsibility. Governments are supposed to be responsible to their own people (they haven't been generally). Corporations are ultimately responsible to the free market, either through their share holders, or their customers who don't generally have to buy from the corporation. People are supposed to vote with their pocketbooks. If you care about dolphins don't eat tuna mixed with it. Or something.
Corporations evolved because they were absolutely neccessary. Once our economies had passed the stage of single artisans, some sort of legal agreement between consenting adults was neccessary to codify the new complex relationships between people working together to provide a good or service. How would single people produce and market a computer on a mass basis? There are what ~6.7 billion (I think) people, you can't expect that many people to live in villages and all buy their toothpaste and condoms from the local toothpaste and condom artisans (licensed members of their guild I'm sure). A corporation is just a piece of paper representing what was already in existance...
You are misinformed. The Republican Party are for tax breaks for *big* buisness. The Republican Party is also for a lax enforcement of anti-trust laws which hurt small buisnesses in a big way.
The Democratic Party has *always* been for the little guy. Whether poor, whether a small buisness, and in the past 35 years the civil rights movement.
Basically:
Republicans: BIG Buisnesses (Just look up Resident Bush's list of contributors)
Democrats: Small Buisnesses, Consumers, and Employees
-Rick
One of the primary problems with so much power in the hands of corporation is that there are no constitutional protections of individual rights from corporate power. Corporations can supress your free speech, can read your e-mail, can fire you for no reason. Also the idea that capitalism = democracy has become a sort of ingrained dogma of the religion of free market economics (I say religion because it does seem to be more based on faith than reason or logic. Also it 's followers have a tendency to denounce as 'commies' or 'socialists' anyone who questions this religion. Kind of like labeling someone a 'heretic'). In fact capitalism can and does function very well in fascist and totalatarian states.
These are popular answers to popular questions. I have no answers and neither do you. But at least admit to the problem. Excessive greed, greed is the problem. An endorsed greed that makes people want more than everyone else. It will never stop. Until that driving force dies. Sadly now the greed is so great millions sit in front of a box and dream of it, having it. Playing video games and waiting for the next sequel. Oh god! "How long must we wait for DOOMcraft X" "I can't jack off to this faked J LO spread anymore I need something new!" And the really cool people drive around and smatter as many drugs ina weekend as possible all for the most part in a vein attempt At joy. Later in life repenting, and forgetting all thier faults. Preying they forget. I understand that there is no real consipracy as this is common. In america you are all rich these are the common lifestyles of the rich. to be bored with what you have and to want more. Those in power believe this lie the most and thats why you see them doing whatever it takes to make it. I happen to believe that there is more worth to somethings and some people than not. That people are only products when the've been trained to believe they are.
What? Is there no paranoid loony setting for the moderators?
And why is a post that uses outakes from the national review a troll while a document from a left-wing think tank news?
A walk on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage?
I agree with all your points here, except that I don't think that the number of shareholders matters. Let me raise the specter of another think tank report. Re wealth distribution, the Economic Policy Institute that reported (Working America 2000-1)the following: - 50% of people own stocks (this includes indirectly via mutual funds etc) - top 1% owns 48% of stocks and 86% of all assets (includes property etc) - top 20% owns 96% of all assets - top 34% owns 99.5% of all assets - There has been no substantial change in wealth or asset distribution over the last 10 years (despite some improvements in the late 90's). That says the rich aren't getting richer, but no-one else is either. Of course, there's probably another agenda think tank agenda here...
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?